IR 05000062/1993003
| ML20056G769 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | University of Virginia |
| Issue date: | 08/18/1993 |
| From: | Bassett C, Mcalpine E NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20056G766 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-062-93-03, 50-62-93-3, NUDOCS 9309070140 | |
| Download: ML20056G769 (10) | |
Text
..
...
- -
.
~
_
--
'
l
.
.. -
M UNITED STATES
.
- . [
r.to a
r, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
7"
-
- S.
REGloN 11
%
. E-101 MARlETTA STREET, N.W., SUITE 2900 En ij ATLANTA, GEORGIA 303234199 l
,
.....
Report No.: 50-62/93-03 Licensee:. University of Virginia
l Charlottesville, VA 22901_
Docket No.: 50-62 License No.:
R-66 l
Facility Name: University of. Virginia Reactor-(UVAR)
. Inspection Conducted: July 26-30, 1993
.
Inspector:
M O
me o
C. H. Bassetts
\\
\\
Date Signed L
Approved by:
$fW ' O bc[w,
/ E kS E.-J. McAlpine,' Chief
\\
Date Signed Radiation Safety Projects Section
- Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Branch Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards l-SUMMARY
. Scope:
This routine,. announced inspection involved onsite review of the operations of this Class I non-power reactor.
It also included review of the preparations for and fuel movement involved in a shipment of spent fuel.
Result's:
The licensee's organization remained unchanged since the previous operations inspection. However, the licensee has submitted a request to amend their L
Technical Specifications to place the Provost of the university in the official' chain of command, with the Dean of the School of Engineering reporting through the Provost to the President of the university (Paragraph 2).
y
_
The Reactor Safety Committee continues to perform its function and provide the facility with g'ood support. The audits performed by the committee appeared to i
be adequate, although the one performed during the fall of last year was i
. completed two months late (Paragraph 3).
The licensed operators are meeting the requirements to maintain their licenses in an active status. The operator requalification program has been improved to include a series of lectures on emergency procedures. This was in response
,
to observations noted during previous inspections and during the NRC-l.
administered requalification examination in July 1992. The requalification l'
program is on. schedule for this year. The required medical records for the
[
- various ~ operators have been completed and are up-to-date (Paragraph 4).
i.
9309070140 930018 PDR ADOCK-05000062 O
.
,, - _,
.. ~
. _ _ -. _ _,, _ _,, _ _ _, _, _,
-
..
..
.
.-
.
.
.
.
-..
.
.-
.
.
The procedures used by the licensee, including the review and approval
_ rocess, appear to be adequate. The licensee uses Standard Operating p
Procedures for general' facility operations and uses Methods.for specific, detailed jobs. The Procedures are reviewed and approved by the Facility Director and the Reactor Safety Committee while the Methods are reviewed and
,
L approved only by'the. Facility Director (Paragraph 5).
L
.
.
The operations involving the spent fuel handling and shipment were carried out adequately. A procedure had been written, reviewed, and approved prior to the actual operations. Training had been conducted on the various aspects of the operations.- The-fuel handling was performed properly.and radiological surveys were completed as necessary.
Individual exposures were kept to a minimum and there was no detectable spread 'of contamination. The shipping papers were completed'as required 'and the shipment was made in an expeditious manner
'
(Paragraph 6).
1Theilicensee has experienced no spurious or unexplainable scrams since resuming reactor operations in June following the event of April 28, 1993 (Paragraph 2)..
l'
!
!
l l
i L
l
o
.:
-
.
.
. -
-
..
.
..
.
.
..
-
_
.- _
_.
_. _ _
-
__
_.
_
j
-
L l
-
.
l l
REPORT DETAILS
'l.
-Persons Contacted ~
Licensee Employees i
l~
- T. Doyle, Reactor Operator
- P. Farrar, Reactor Supervisor
- R. Flack, Associate Chairman, Department of Mechanical, Aerospace, and Nuclear Engineering (MANE)
B. Hosticka, Senior Reactor Operator D. Krause, Senior Reactor Operator-
,
L L.= Scheid,: Senior Reactor Operator Other licensee employees ' contacted during this inspection included l
technicians and administrative personnel.
Other Organizations p
J. Gilchrist, Deputy, University.of Virginia Environmental Health and
,
!
Safety (EHS) Department l
D. Steva, Reactor Health Physicist, EHS Department
- Attended exit interview on July 30, 1993.
l 2.
' Organization and Staffing (39745)
Technical Specification (TS) Sections 6.1.1, 6.1.2, and 6.1.3 detail the l
organizational structure, management responsibilities, and staffing
!.
requirements for safe operation _of the UVAR facility.
Through discussions with licensee representatives the inspector determined that management responsibilities and the organization at the
<
L facility had not changed since the previous NRC inspection of reactor operations in September 1992 (Inspection ~ Report No. 50-62/92-02). The inspector determined that the MANE Department Chairman retained overall responsibility for management of the facility as specified in the TS.
However, the inspector noted 'that the licensee had submitted an l
amendment request that would change the organization and reporting chain
.
of command for the' reactor facility. The change would require the
!
chairman of the department to report up through the Dean of the School of Engineering and Applied Science and the Provost to the President of l
the university. Currently the chairman reports to the' president only
,
j through'the dean.
This amendment request-is currently being considered l
by headquarters.
!
The inspector reviewed the licensee's annual report for 1992. The l
report indicated.that the licensee had an adequate staff to support
'
reactor operations and that there was adequate support from the university in the area of health physics. The composition of the Reactor Safety Committee was delineated as well.
It was noted that the L
i I
-
_
._
., _.. __
.
,
,
_
__.._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
--_-_
,
L
.
<
.
,
i
-
!
licensee's report reflected the current organization with the exception l
L of an electronics shop supervisor who had recently retired.
The inspector observed portions of operating shifts and reviewed the logbook (No. 31) for the period from June 3,1992 through the present.
'It was noted, both.from direct observation and the logbook review, that the staffing requirements, as specified in the TS, were met for
)
operating the reactor and for providing health physics support. The licensee currently has_five senior reactor operators-(SR0s), one reactor
'
operator (RO) and four trainees.
j The inspector also reviewed the logbook entries to ascertain how many
spurious or unexplainable scrams or reactor trips had occurred since June. This_was done as a followup to an event which occurred on
,
' April 28, 1993, when an SRO performed trouble shooting / maintenance on the. reactor console following a series of spurious reactor scrams. That activity resulted in operation of the reactor for several hours with j
certain automatic scrams required by TS being inoperable. The reactor l
.was shutdown and not started back up until June 11, 1993.
Since the
'
reactor was restarted, four scrams have occurred but they were the
!
l.
result of fluctuations in the power supply external to the reactor facility. No-spurious or unexplainable scrams have occurred.
j
-
!
No violations or deviations were identified.
'3.
Review, Audit, and Design Change Functions
!
TS 6.2 requires the Reactor Safety Committee (RSC) to review and audit reactor operations to ensure that the facility is operated in a manner
..
consistent with public safety and within the terms of the facility l
l-license. TS 6.2.2 and 6.2.3 detail RSC membership and qualifications,
'
and meeting and audit' frequency. The RSC is required to meet, at a minimum, semiannually, to approve untried experiments, changes to the reactor, amendments and changes to the facility license, TS and S0Ps, to review reportable events and operating abnormalities, and to conduct annual audits of operational records.
i
The-inspector reviewed the composition of the RSC with the licensee.
The composition of the RSC.was determined to be as prescribed in the TS and the members had the appropriate technical backgrounds as required.
j The inspector also reviewed the minutes of the RSC meetings held since j
the'_last inspection, from September 1992 through July 1993. The
'
inspector noted that, during this time period, the RSC met sixteen L
times. The meeting minutes indicated that the issues discussed and
reviewed during RSC meetings included such issues as irradiation
'
requests, TS _ changes, 50.59 reviews, conversion to the use of Low Enriched Uranium (LEU) fuel, abnormal events and corrective actions, the annual RSC audits and results, decommissioning of the CAVALIER reactor, NRC inspection results, changes to various procedures, and Emergency Plan drills and the results of the drills.
,
-
'
-
P"Y'"
.
The inspector also reviewed the audits that had been conducted by the RSC during 1992 and 1993. One biennial audit, scheduled for April -
,
September but conducted in December 1992, reviewed the Emergency Plan (EP), Health Physics (HP) records, and the Security Plan and records.
No major problems were noted but several recommendations were made on ways to improve the EP, the HP records, and the security records. The licensee's response to the audit did not appear to address all the recommendations. When questioned about this matter, the licensee indicated that those items not addressed had been handled through verbal communication. The inspector indicated that all the recommendations should be addressed in the licensee's response so that the corrective actions can be noted and verified. The other audit, from October 1992 through March 1993, consisted of a review of the reactor logbook, the maintenance and calibration logs, the irradiation request forms, and the daily and hourly checklists used by the reactor operators. Again, no major problems were noted but various recommendations were made.
As of the date of the inspection, the licensee had not responded to the audit.
This response will be reviewed during the next NRC inspection.
l The inspector also reviewed the licensee's 10 CFR 50.59 design change evaluations / reviews for the period since the last operations inspection.
Two evaluations / reviews had been completed, one involving the reactor room fresh water make-up system and the other involving the removal of jumpers in the mixer / driver modules which were not part of the scram logic system. The evaluations were submitted by members of the reactor staff and were reviewed the Facility Director and the Reactor Safety Committee.
Each was approved and work was completed. No unresolved safety questions were identified.
No violations or deviations were identified.
4.
Operator Licenses, Requalification, and Medical Activities (41745)
10 CFR 55.53(e) stipulates that, to maintain a license in an active status, the licensee (operator) shall actively perform the functions of an operator or senior operator for a minimum of four hours per calendar quarter.
To verify that the operators had fulfilled the requirements to maintain their respective licenses in an active status, the inspector reviewed the reactor room logbook and the annual operator evaluation forms maintained by the Reactor Supervisor.
Both indicated that all operators had performed the functions of an operator or senior operator for significantly more than the minimum number of hours specified.
10 CFR 55.59 details the requirements for a licensee's requalification program including:
1) conducting the program for a continuous period not to exceed two years, 2) presenting preplanned lectures on a regular and continuing basis throughout the license requalification period, 3) conducting on-the-job training for the operators, and 4) giving a comprehensive requalification written examination and annual operating L
test for all operators. Through a review of training and examination
'
records, the inspector determined that the reactor operator requalification training program is on schedule and is in accordance l
.
_
_
.-
_
I
-
?
-
-
-
l
!
- '
-with the licensee's commitments. Training had been conducted on changes as required and the. requalification program had been revised to include
more emphasis-on emergency procedurcs and scenarios.
For the most recent requalification cycle, which is a one year period at i
this facility, all of the prescribed seventeen lectures had been
!
completed as scheduled.
In the few instances when an' operator missed a
.
l l
lecture, the operator was provided-with the lecture notes and given an j
oral examination on the subject. The lecture series included five on L
abnormal and emergency procedures. The examination for this
'
'
requalification cycle had not been given as of the date of the
-
inspection due to various reasons. One was a previous incident (see NRC
'
l Inspection Reports Nos. 50-62/93-01 and 50-62/93-02) which occurred on
!
!
April 28,1993, and involved operating the reactor at full power for 5.5
,
hours with five major automatic trips required by TS not operable.
- i l
Other reasons were the effort to convert to the use of LEU fuel and the
license fee exemption revocation problem.
i 10' CFR 55.21 requires.that a licensee (operator) have a medical
'
l examination by 'a physician every two years and that the operator's medical condition and general health will not adversely affect the performance of assigned operator job' duties or cause operational errors
,
endangering public health and safety.
The inspector reviewed the medical records of the various operators at the facility and verified that each. had the required physical examination. The records indicated
.
that the operators were physically fit to perform the duties of a
'
reactor operator and each operator had an examination within the past i
two years.
No violations or deviations were identified.
'5.
Procedures (42745)
-
TS Section 6.3 stipulates that the licensee have written procedures that are reviewed and approved by the Reactor Safety Committee. This section also requires that substantive changes to the approved procedures be made only with the approval of the Reactor Safety Committee.
Changes that do not change the original intent of the procedures could be made with the approval of the Facility Director.
The licensee-uses a series of Standard Operating Procedures (S0Ps) to operate the facility. These SOPS generally cover personnel responsibilities, reactor operations and fuel movement, checklists to be used in conjunction with. reactor operations, material irradiations, system calibration and maintenance, surveillances, radiological controls, actions to take to correct specific and foreseen malfunctions, and emergency conditions involving potential or actual release of radioactivity. For specific jobs which are not covered by SOPS,
-
including some maintenance activities, the licensee uses Methods.
'
The inspector reviewed selected S0Ps and Methods. The SOPS had been reviewed and approved by both the Facility Director and the Reactor
-.
.
-... _
- -
.
.
., -, -
_
. --
.
.
!
l
Safety Committee (RSC) while the Methods were reviewed and approved only by the Facility Director. Any major or substantive changes to the 50Ps l
had been sent to the RSC for review and approval while minor changes and l
changes to Methods had been reviewed and approved by the Facility
Director and copies sent to the RSC for information.
i
!
'
Although there were various portions of the SOPS dealing with operations
'
such as surveillances and instrument calibrations, none specifically i
addressed maintenance operations. However, S0P 7 did contain a gen. al
'
description of what constitutes trouble shooting and maintenance, some
precautions concerning maintenance, and requirements to keep maintenance
records, to verify systems are operable following maintenance, and to complete a QA/QC Plan and Facility Design Construction Evaluation Form
'
(50.59 review) if modifications to the facility or safety systems were planned.
!
Following the incident which occurred on April 28, 1993, one of the l
licensee's long-term corrective actions was to expand upon the personnel responsibilities outlined in 50P 3.
The inspector reviewed this subject with licensee representatives. The 50P had been revised and responsibilities described in more detail than the previous version of S0P 3.
However, when the revised S0P was sent to the RSC for review and approval,.the committee felt that the S0P was too prescriptive and did i
not approve that version. The Facility Director then issued the
'
revision of personnel responsibilities as the Reactor Director's Statement of Policy and, as of the date of the inspection, was again revising S0P 3.
A review of the responsibilities of reactor operators outlined in S0P 1 indicated that some were implied but not listed.
Specifically, 50P 1 did not indicate that a formal shift turnover should take place. Also, the 50P did not list the operator's responsibility to believe instrument indications until indications are proven to be incorrect. These procedural improvements were discussed with the Facility Director who indicated that they would be reviewed and incorporated into the procedure if it were deemed necessary.
'
The inspector reviewed two special procedures which had been prepared for specific work evolutions. These procedures were:
"Special Procedure for Recovery of Activated Aluminum-Silicon
'
-
0xide Beads Containing IR-192," Rev. O, dated October 6, 1992.
-
" Procedures for Loading UVAR Fuel Assemblies into the BMI-1
.
Shipping Cask for Transfer to Savannah River," Rev. 2, dated l
July 27, 1993.
The procedures appeared to be adequate to describe the steps necessary to complete the respective tasks. The radiological controls outlined in the procedures also appeared to be adequate.
!
. _ -.
_
..
.
.
6
.
During the inspection period, the inspector observed licensee personnel perform various operations. The inspector determined that the individuals were following procedures and that adherence to procedures was adequate. This was especially evident during the spent fuel movement and shipment (see Paragraph 6 below).
r 6.
Fuel Movement (60745)
The inspector reviewed the portion of the SOPS dealing with fuel movement. The fuel movement section appeared to be adequate for moving fuel to and from the reactor and within the pool. As mentioned above, a special procedure had been written for handling and shipping spent fuel.
The 50P and the special procedure had been reviewed and approved by the Facility Director and the RSC. Training had been given on the activities that-would controlled by the special procedure and all personnel involved had signed that they had received the training.
Preparati~ons for the spent fuel shipment were completed on July 28, 1993. During that day the inspector observed licensee personnel handling the spent fuel and performing other functions related to the shipment of the-fuel. All activities were done in accordance with the procedure. An SR0 was in charge of transferring the spent fuel from
)
storage racks in the reactor pool to a transfer cask.
Prior to placing the fuel element into the cask, the identifying numbers on each one were read and two individuals verified that was the correct element to ship.
The transfer. cask was then raised out of the pool, rinsed and dried off, and placed on a forklift inside the reactor room. The transfer cask was
'
then moved outside and, with the aid of a large rental crane, was placed inside a large auxiliary tank which was filled with water. There the
.
fuel elements were transferred from the transfer cask to a shipping cask which had been placed in the auxiliary tank previously. The transfer cask was then raised out of the auxiliary tank, rinsed off, and placed back on the forklift and transported back inside the reactor room and into the reactor pool to receive another fuel element.
Various radiological controls were used during the fuel handling operations. Each individual received a direct reading dosimeter and dose was recorded after every fuel element transfer. Those personnel who were potentially required to be in contact with the transfer cask and the shipping cask were issued extremity dosimetry. A radiation survey was performed each time the transfer cask was raised out of the reactor pool after being loaded with a fuel element.
Both gamma and neutron radiation level surveys were performed.
General area radiation levels of I-2 millirem were the highest detected during the movement of the loaded cask. Airborne monitoring inside the reactor room was performed by the constant air monitor beside the reactor pool. During i
the fuel movement operations, no airborne particulate concentration above the limits specified in 10 CFR Part 20, Appendix B, Table 1, Column 1, were noted.
Personnel exposures were kept to a minimum and the highest exposure received by anyone was two millirem. The entire area, both inside the reactor room and outside (where the cask transfers were conducted and the area surrounding the truck and trailer used for I
_
.-
-
.-
.
...
-
.-. --
- _ _ _ _ - _
_
L
.,
..
l
\\
the shipment), was roped _off and controlled.. Individuals leaving the I
area were. required to perform a personnel survey before exiting.
Following the operation, the entire area was surveyed before being
!
released. No personnel contaminations occurred and no contamination of j
the floor or ground was detected. Surface contamination to 200
+
disintegrations per minute per one hundred square centimeters was found
!
on some of the tools used during the fuel handling. These tools were
placed in a contamination controlled area and subsequently l
1-decontaminated.
.
The inspector also reviewed the security plan.
It was determined that j
the licensee was in compliance with all portions of the security plan
i
'related to the transfer and shipping of the fuel elements, identified in
l the. plan as irradiated Special Nuclear. Material (SNM).
j o
The inspector briefly reviewed the paperwork that the licensee had j
'
- completed for shipping the spent fuel. The papers appeared to be
- complete and to contain the required information. The surveys performed in conjunction with the shipment appeared to be adequate.
,
,
,
No violations or deviations were identified.
l i-i 7.
Followup on Information~ Notices -(92717)
l t
- The inspector determined that the licensee was receiving some of the i
pertinent the NRC Information Notices (ins) and that they were being i
reviewed for applicability and distributed to the appropriate personnel.
Removal of a Fuel Element From a Research Reactor Core
-
While Critical. Dated November 4, 1992.
Non-Power Reactor Emergency Event Response. Dated
'
-
December 1, 1992.
8.
Exit. Interview The. inspection scope and results were summarized on July 30, 1993, with those per' sons indicated in Paragraph 1.
The inspector described the areas _ inspected and discussed in detail the inspection findings. The licensee's organization remained unchanged since the previous opt rations inspection ~(Paragraph 2). The Reactor Safety Committee continues to
. perform its function and provide the facility with good support. The
- audits performed by the committee appeared to be adequate, although the j
- one performed _ during the fall of last year was completed two months late
- (Paragraph 3). The licensed operators are meeting the requirements to maintain their licenses in an active status. The operator requalification program _is on schedule for this year. The required medical records for the various operators have been completed and are up-to-date--(Paragraph'4). The procedures used by the licensee,
,
including the review and approval process, appear to be adequate. The
'
licensee uses Standard Operating Procedures for general facility J
operations and uses Methods for specific, detailed jobs (Paragraph 5).
,
,
p e
w y-r-w
--
v-
-y
,,,, - -
e,,,+-n-e1-.-wr,nw-,er#-
e+
sr *r--
-w w
r-
,
=-r
.
-_-
_
_ _ _.. _
. _.
._
_- -. _ _.
..
.
The operations. involving the spent fuel handling and shipment were carried out adequately. A procedure had been written, reviewed, and approved prior.to the actual operations. Training had been conducted on the various aspects of the operations. The fuel handling was performed
,
. properly and radiological surveys were completed as necessary.
'
Individual exposures were kept to a minimum and there was no detectable l
'
spread-of contamination. The shipping papers were completed as required l
and the shipment was made in an expeditious manner (Paragraph 6). The licensee has experienced no spurious or unexplainable scrams since
.
-resuming reactor operations in June following the event of April 28, l
1993 (Paragraph 2).
.
l No dissenting comments were received from the licensee. The licensee did not identify as proprietary any of the material provided to or
'
reviewed by the inspector.
l
!
i i
i
!
L L
L i-l l
L l-
.
.
.
.,
.
-
..
.
.
. _ -. _ _.. _ _,.., _ _ _. -