IR 05000062/1997201
| ML20197F730 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | University of Virginia |
| Issue date: | 12/11/1997 |
| From: | Bassett C, Weiss S NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20197F722 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-062-97-201, 50-396-97-201, 50-62-97-201, NUDOCS 9712300283 | |
| Download: ML20197F730 (8) | |
Text
__
.
_
_
_ _. _
..... _
_. _ -. _ _
_
_
.
-
.
.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
.
OFFICli OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION Docket Nos.:
50 62 and 50 396
,
Ucense Nos.:
R 66 and R 123
>
Report No.:
50 62/97 201 ano 50 396/97 201
,
I Uconsee:
University of Virginia Facility:
University of Virginia Reactor (UVAR)
Location:
Charlottesville, VA 22901 i
inspection Conducted:
November 11 13,1997 l
!
Inspector:
C. Bassett, Senior Reactor lispector
.,
i Approvad by:
Seymour H. Weiss, Director Non Power Reactors and Decommissioning Project Directorate
,
Division of Reactor Program Management
'
-
,
s
>
l
-)
e PDR a
L..
.,7.
.:
- -,
,.,,,
.
r
, - -.
._.
.
- _ _. - _ _
_ _ _.. _
.. - _ _. _
_. _ _ _ _ _ _._
-
,
,
,
t
.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY i
University of Virginia Reactor (UVAR)
,
NRC Inspection Report Nos. 50-62/97 201 and 50 396/97 201
-
The primary focus of this routine, announced inspection was the on site review of the safety program of this Class i non power reactor including organization and staffing, for
.v l
and audit functions, procedures, radiation protection and ALARA programs, and effluent and
environmental monitoring. The inspection also included a review of the licensee's
'
shipments of radioactive motorisi.
,
Channes, Oroantration, and Staffino l
e The licensee's organization and staffing remain in compliance with the requirements specified in the Technical Specifications.
-Review and Audit Functions Audits were being conducted by the Reactor Safety Committee (RSC) according to the e
requirements specified in the Technical Specifications (TS).
Erocedures r
e Facility procedures were acceptable reviewed by the licensee. Revisions were reviewed and approved by the RSC as required by TS.
Radiation Protection Program
.
Surveys were completed and documented acceptably to permit evaluation of the
radiation hazards that might exist.
- Postings met the regulatory requirements.
Personnel dosimetry was being worn as required l doses were well within specified
procedural action levels and regulatory limits.
Radiation monitoring equipment was being maintained and calibrated as reaulted.
- The Radiation Protection and ALARA Programs satisfiard regulatory requirements.
e
Effluent and Environmental Monitorino Effluent monitoring r.itisfied license and regulatory requirements and releases were e
within the specified regulatory and TS limits.
- Transportation of Radioactive Materiep Shipments of licensed material made from the f acility were in accordance with th's-e requirements stipulated in the regulations.
,
-
-
..- - -.
-..
-
.
...
.
_ _
.
.
'
.
, REPORT DETAILS Summary of Plant Status The licensee's two megawatt (2MW) light water cooled, moderated, and shielded type UVAR continues to be operated in support of graduate and other laboratory experiments, reactor operator training, neutron activation analysis, neutron radiography, and various types of irradiations. During the inspection, the research reactor was operated intermittently for minerelirradiation. The 100 watt training reactor, the CAVALIER reector used primarily for reactor operator training and undergraduate laboratory experiments, has been shut down since August 4,1987. A decommissioning plan was submitted to the NRC in January 1990 and an order to decommission was issued by the NRC on February 3, 1992. Decommissioning of the CAVAUER is in progress.
1. Changes, Organization, and Staffing (83743)
a. In.s ection Scope y
The Inspector reviewed the licensee's organization and staffing to ensure that it met the requirements of Technical Specification (TS) Sections 6.1.1, 0.1.2, and 6.1.3:
the organizational structure, e
management responsibilities, and
+
staffing requirements for safe operation of the UVAR facility.
i b. Observations and Findinas Through discussions with licensee representatives the inspector determined that management responsibilities and the organization at the f acility had not changed since the previous NRC health physics inspection in May 1996 (Inspection Report No. 50 62/96 01). The inspector determined that the MANE Department Chair retained overall responsibility for management of the f acility as specified in the TS.
Through observation of operations and discussions with licensee personnel, the inspectors determined that the staffing at the facility was adequate to support the work and ongoing activities and met the requirements of the Technical Specifl cation, c. Conclusions The licensee's organization and staffing remain in compliance with the requirements specified in the Technical Specifications.
2. Review and Audit Functions (83743)
a. inspection Scope
_
The inspector reviewed the following to ensure that the audits and reviews stipulated in the requirements of TS 6.2 were being completed:
. -.
-
-
-
- -.
A
.
Reactor Safety Committee (RSC) meeting minutes
the composition of the RSC
the charter of the RSC, and
the duties of the RSC including the committee's review and audit functions.
- The inspector also toured the licensee's fscility to note any changes that may have been made and reviewed the program established by the licenses to ensure that all activities at the facility were reviewed and hurlited as req' sired.
b. Observations and Findings The inspectors reviewed the RSC's rnesting minutes from May 1996 to the present.
The inspectors noted that the RSC was meeting more frequentb' than required by the TS. The meeting minu'es showed that the RSC had considered the types of toples outlined by the TS. The RSC also performtd audits of the reactor facility operatirsns and programs. The inspectors noted that, since the last NRC operations inspection, audits had been completed by the RSC in Ju!y and December 1906, and April 1997.
The audits were varied so that all aspects of the licensee's safety program were reviewed every two years. The Inspectors noted that the sudits and the resulting findings were detailed and that the licensee's responses and corrective actions were acceptable.
The inspector toured the control room, pool area, beam port arens, and selected laboratories. Control of radioactive material and control of access to radiation areas were accapt6ble. Improvements in housekeeping were noted in all areas of the facility.
c. Conclusions Audits were be!ng conducted according to the requirements speelfiad in the Technical Specifications.
3. Procedures (83743)
e, inspection Scope The inspector reviewed the following to ensure that the requirements of TS Section 6.3 were being met concerning written procedures:
selected operations procedures,
+
selected safety procedures, and
+
the process used by the licenseu to revise, review, and approve all facility
+
procedures.
b. Observations and Findinas The inspector verified ' hat the written procedures were reviewed by the licensee as required. Also, revisions to procedures were presented by the licensee to the RSC for review and approval. The inspector verified that the latest revision to the UVAR
{
_ _. _
.
.
,
3-SOP Chapter 10, * Radiation Protection Procedures," had been reviewid and approved by the RSC on September 11,1997. The revisions were acceptable and in accordance with 10 CFR 20 ar.d TS 6.3.
t c. Conclusions Tacility procedures were acceptable and satisfied TS requirements for being revised by the licensee, and reviewed and approved by the RSC.
4. Radletion Protection Psogram (83743)
.
a. !nspection Scope The inspector reviewed the following to verify compliance with 10 CFR 20 and the applicable licensee TS requirements and procedures:
i health phy ics (HP) and reactor surveillance / survey records,
+
radiological signs and posting,
+
dosimetry records,
+
calibration records and periodic check records for radiation monitoring e
instruments, the Radiation Protection Program, and
+
the ALARA Program.
+
The inspector also observed the use of dosimetry and radiation monitoring equipment during tours of the facility. Licensee personnel were interviewed as well.
b. Observations and Findings Weekly, monthly, and other periodic contamination and radiation surveys were completed by the HP staff as required by TS and licensee procedures. Results were evaluated and t:orrective actions taken when roadings or results exceeded set action levels.
Postings at the entrances to the controlled areas, including the Reactor room, were acceptable for the hazards present. The facility's radioactive material storage areas were properly posted. No unmarked radioactive material was noted. Copies of NRC Form 3 were posted in appropriate areas in the facility as were current notices to workers required by 10 CFR Part 19.
The licensee used a National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program (NVLAP) accredited vendor to process personnel thermoluminescent dosimetry. An examination of the records for the pest three years through the date of the inspection sfiowed that all exNsures were well within NRC limits and licensee action levels. Most of the records suggested no exposure above background.
Selected radiation monitoring equipment had the acceptable up to-date calibration stickor attached. The calibration of portable survey meters was typically done by a contractor. Calibration frequency met procedural requirements and records were maintained as require *
.
g
'
The licensee's Radiation Protection Program was established in the " University of Virginia Radiation Safety Guide," dated May 29,1990. It had been reviewed, approved, and signed by the current campus Hadiation Safety Officer and by the Chair of the RSC. The program included requirements that all personnel who had
unescorted access to the UVAR f acility receive training in radiation protection, policies, procedures, requirements, and f acilities.
The ALARA Program was also outlined and established in the licensee's * Health Physics Suggested Method Manual," signed by the RSC Chair and in the *UVA Radiation Safety Gulde." The ALARA program prodded guidance for keeplag doses as low as reasonably achievable and was consistent with the guldance in 10 CFR 20.
The licensee had no Respiratory Protection Program.
'
c. Conclusions Surveys were completed and documented acceptably to permit evaluation of the radiation hazards that might exist. PoM!ngs met regulatory requirements. Personnel dosimetry was being worn as required and doses were well within specified procedural action levels and reguistory limits. Radiation monitor.ng equipment was being maintained and calibrcted as required. The Radiation Protection Program and the ALARA Program satisfied regulatory requirements.
5. Effluent and Environmental Monitoring (80745)
l a. Inspection Scope The inspector reviewed tht following to verify compliance with the requirements of 10 CFR 20 and TS 3.4 and 6.7.2:
the licensee's environmental monitoring program,
+
annual reports, e
release records, and
+
counting and analysis records.
+
<
b. Observation and Findings i
Gaseous releases were calculated as outlined in the licensee's approved methods and acceptably documented. The releases during 1996, and to date in 1997, were well within the annual dose constraint of 20.1101(d) and TS limits. Liquid releases were approved by the Reactor Health Physicist (RHP) and reviewed by the campus Radiation Safety Officer (RS0). The inspector reviewed the 11001 release records and determined that they were properly documented. it was also noted that the results were within the annuallimits and concentration constraints stipulated in TS 3.4 and in 10 CFR 20.2003 and Appendix B of Part 2.
.
,
.-
5-c. Conclusion Effluent monitoring satisfied license and regulatory requirements and releases were within the specified regulatory and TS limits.
8. Transportation 188740)-
a. Ins 2tcilon Scope The Inspector Iriterviewed licensee personnel and reviewed various records to verify compilence with the requirements of 10 CFR 71.5 for shipments of licensed material.
b.- Observations end Findinag Through records reviews and discussions with licensee personnel, the inspector
'
determined that various shipments of licensed material had been made since the last inspection. The records showed that the material had been properly described and classified, that the correct labeling and placarding had been provided, and that the contamination and radiation levels of the psckages shipped had been recorded acceptably. All shipment records had been completed and were being maintained as required, i
c. Qnclusions Shipments of licensed material made from the facility were in accordance with the requirements stipulated in the regulations.
7. Exit letorview The inspection scope and results were summarized on November 13,1997, with members of licensee management. The inspector described the areas inspected and discussed in detail the inspection findings.
No dissanting comments were received from the licensee. The licensee did not identify as proprietary any of the material provided to or reviewed by the inspector.
,
PER! ONS CONTACTED Licensee Linployees P. Bennoche, Reactor Supervisor C. Bly, Senior Reactor Operator R. Flack, Chair, Mechanical, Aeronautical and Nuclear Engineering (MANE)
Department 8. Hosticka, Senior Reactor Operator-R. Mulder, Director, University of Virginia Reactor Facility Q
-
.
_
...
,
.
.
.c.
Other licensee employees contacted during this inspection included technicians and administrative personnel.
Other Organizations D. Steva, RHP, UVA Campus Environmental Health and Safety Department R. Piccolo, RSO, UVA Campus Environmentai Health and Safety Department INSPECTION PROCEDURES USED IP 80745 Class i Non Power Reactor Effluent and Environmental Monitering IP 83743 Class i Non Power Reactor Radiation Protection IP 80740 inspection of Transportation Activities LIST OF ITEMS OPENED, CLOSED, AND DISL JSSED Opened None Closed None LIST OF ACRONYMS USED j
ALARA As Low As Reasonably Achievable CFR Code of Federal Regulations MW Megawatt NPR Non Power Reactor NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission NRR Nuclear Reactor Regulation NVLAP National Voluntary Laboratory Accredita*lon Program PDR Public Document Room RHP Reactor Health Physicist RSC Reactor Safety Committee RSO Radiation Safety Officer SOP Standard Operating Procedure TS Technical Specification UVA Unis ersity of Virginia UVAR University of Virginia Reactor