IR 05000083/1979002
| ML19269F466 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000083 |
| Issue date: | 11/20/1979 |
| From: | Burnett P, Julian C NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19269F453 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-083-79-02, 50-83-79-2, NUDOCS 7912210069 | |
| Download: ML19269F466 (6) | |
Text
.
.
/
'o, UNITED STATES
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
,
n
,
$
E REGION 11 e
b[
101 MARIETTA ST., N.W., SUITE 3100 o,
%
o ATLANTA, G EORGI A 30303 Report No. 50-83/79-02 Licensee: University of Florida 202 Nuclear Sciences Center
-
Gainesville, Florida 32601 Facility Name: University of Florida Training Reactor License No. R-56 Inspector:
b'
9 C. Julian" Date Signed Approved by:
}/AeM
//-C 4 9 5'
PET B6rifeCActing Section Chief, RONS Branch Date Signed Date of Inspection: October 22-25, 1979 Areas Inspected This routine unannounced inspection involved 28 inspector-hours onsite in the areas of reactor operator requalification program, surveillance, UFTR subcom-mittee review and audit, operating logs and records, experiments, and procedures.
Results Of the 6 areas inspected, no items of noncompliance or deviations were identi-fied in 5 areas; 2 apparent items of noncompliance were found in one area.
2166 248 1 9122;LO
[gC
.
.
.
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Licensee Employees
- Dr. E. E. Carroll, Acting Chairman, Department of Nuclear Engineering Sciences
- Dr. G. R. 2*'. ton, Professor of Nuclear Engineering and Chairman, Reactor Safety Committee
- Dr. N. J. Diaz, Professor of Nuclear Engineering and Reactor Supervisor s
- T.
J. Bauer, Radiation Control Officer H. Gogun, Senior Reactor Operator G. W. Fogle, Reactor Operator J. G. Cantlin, Reactor Operator H. Norton, Radiological Safety Technician Other licensee employees contacted included various office personnel.
- Attended exit interview 2.
Exit Interview The inspection scope and findings were summarized on October 25, 1979 with those persons indicated in Paragraph 1 above. The inspector presented to the licensee representatives the findings as detailed below and stated the two items of noncompliance.
Licensee representatives acknowledged the items of noncompliance, and committed to take action to close the outstanding items described in paragraphs 6 and 10 below.
3.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings Unresolved item 78-04-01 from a previous inspection was determined to be an item of noncompliance as detailed in paragraph 7 below.
Unresolved item 78-04-02 is closed as described in paragraph 10 below.
4.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items are matters about which more information is required to determine whether they are acceptable or may involve noncompliance or deviations. A new unresolved item identified during this inspection is discussed in paragraph 10.
5.
Reactor Operator Requalification Program The inspector reviewed the records of reactor operator requalification efforts for the calendar years 1978 and 1979 through the dates of inspection.
As of July 1, 1979 the licensee has put into operation a revised requalifica-tion program. The licensee notified the NRC Operator Licensing Branch bb 2
.
.
.
s-2-(OLB) of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation by letter of June 8, 1979 that the revised program wou?' be implemented on July 1, 1979, but no formal approval by OLB was obtained by the licensee prior to the change.
By telephone conversation on 10/29/79 with the chief of OLB the inspector determined that OLB feels that the revision did not decrease the scope, time allotted for the program or frequency in conducting different parts of the program. Thus, this revision to the reactor operator requalificatica program was not in violation of the regulations of 10CFR 50.54 (i-1).
No deviations or items of noncompliance were identified in this area.
6.
Surveillance The inspector reviewed a representative sample of records of surveillance tests required by the technical specifications which were performed between June 1978 and the inspection dates. The following items were of particular Concern.
On 9/29/79, during a test of control blade drop times, safety rod number 2 required 1.050 seconds to insert. This exceeds the 1 second maximum drop time prescribed by the technical specifications Table II. The test was repeated 5 times but blade drop times were satisfactory with a maximum drop time of 0.642 seconds. The reactor was left shutdown while the matter wss investigated and reviewed with the UFTR Subcommittee.
The licensee concluded that an electrical failure of the fully withdrawn blade position indication limit switch allowed the control blade to overtravel slightly on withdrawal.
The control blades are of the semaphore design and the licensee concluded that the blade overtravel caused the pillow block bearings supporting the control blade drive shaft to momentarily stick. The bearings were replaced and the control blade drop time satisfactorily tested prior to resumption of operation.
The inspector discussed this event with licensee representatives and deter-mined that a prompt report was not made to the NRC because the licensee did not construe this event to be an " abnormal occurance". Technical specifica-tion IX.L.3 states that abnormal occurances include a violation of the technical specifications. The licensee felt that this situation was not a violation of the technical specifications because the reactor was shut down for several days prior to the test for modifications to the control rod drive motor wiring and thus the reactor was not actually operated in viola-tion of the blade drop time limit. The inspector discussed with the reactor supervisor interpretations of technical specification reporting requirements, and stated that future events of this nature should be promptly reported.
The inspector noted that no written procedure is in use for test S-2
" Reactivity Measurements" which measures control-blade worths, shut down margin, and reactivity insertion rate. The inspector reviewed the results of previous tests during 1978 and 1979 and discussed the methods with licensee representatives to determine that the tests were being conducted properly. Technical specification IX.K defines the type of written proce-dures to be maintained, but does not specifically require written approved 2166 250
.
.
.
-3-procedures for surveillance required by technical specifications. Licensee representatives agreed with the inspector that a written procedure is needed for this test and committed to develop one.
The inspector stated that the procedure will be reviewed during a future inspection.
(50-83/79-02-01)
No deviations or items of noncompliance were identified in this area.
7.
UFTR Subcommittee Review and Audit The inspector reviewed the available minutes from meetings of the University of Florida Training Reactor (UFTR) Subcommittee of the University Radiation Control (URC) Committee held during 1978 and 1979. The following discrepan-cies were found.
No minutes were found for meetings held between 4/4/78 and 8/8/78 although it appears that monthly meetings were held. Technical specification IX.H states that the subcommittee shall meet quarterly not to exceed 4 months, and that the subcommittee shall keep written records of its meetings.
Although the subcommittee chairman has hand written personal notes of
meetings, these do not suffice for a written record because without relying on the memory of those present, it cannot be determined what subcommittee actions were taken. Failure to keep the required adequate records is an item of noncompliance (50-83/79-02-02).
During a previous inspection on 6/8/78, an NRC inspector noted that the annual audit of reactor operations for 1977 by the subcommittee was assigned to four individuals on 12/21/77 and as of 6/8/78, had not been completed.
During that inspection, the licensee committed to complete that audit within 30 days, and to complete all future audits within 30 days of the assignment dates. The item was left unresolved. During the current in-spection, it was determined that the 1977 audit was not completed within 30 days after 6/8/78. A memo dated 12/5/78 to the UFTR Subcommittee states that the last segment of the four part audit was performed on 8/6/78.
Further review of records yielded no statement in the UFTR Subcommittee minutes that the 1977 audit was finally complete. Additionally there was no response to the audit findings from the reactor staff. Thus, it appears that contrary to technical specification IX.I.3 no intensive in-depth review of facility operations was completed for the year 1977.
This unre-solved item 78-04-01 from the previous inspection is therefore changed to an item of noncompliance (50-83/79-02-03).
The inspector noted that the 1978 audit was completed during January 1979, and included a response by the acting reactor supervisor with proposed corrective action.
8.
Operating Logs and Records The inspector reviewed representative segments of the console data sheet for the period of June 1978 to the date of inspection. All entries reviewed appeared adequate. The inspector reviewed the maintenance log entries for 2166 251
.
.
.
-4-
-
1978 and 1979 to date with satisfactory findings. The present facility organization and staffing appears consistent with technical specification requirements.
No deviations or items of noncompliance were identified in this area.
9.
Experiments The inspector reviewed records of the required review and approval of various experiments conducted during 1978 and 1979. Particular attention was given to the circumstances of an event of 7/31/78 in which tritium was inadvertently released from an experiment into the reactor cell. After review by the UFTR subcommittee and others, more specific detailed procedures were developed for the loading and unloading of similar experiments in the through tube facility.
No deviations or items of noncompliance were found in this area.
10.
Procedures The inspector reviewed the status of the facility standard operating procedures (S0P) as of the date of inspection.
Procedure F.2 " Temporary Procedures" was implemented on 3/6/79 in response to unresolved item 78-04-02 from a previous NRC inspection.
The procedure appears adequate and unresolved item 78-04-02 is closed.
The inspector noted that procedure E.3.a " Operation cf City Water Cooling Systems" was incorporated on 5/22/79 as a temporary procedure.
E.3.a was subsequently approved as a permanent procedure on 6/5/79, but was not removed from the list of temporary procedures.
Licensee representatives stated that this would be done promptly and the inspector stated that this will be reviewed at a later inspection (50-83/79-02-04).
The following three items of concern were discussed with licensee representatives.
Procedure A.5 " Experiments" was changed in a very minor way on 2/7/79 a.
by the Acting Reactor Supervisor as allowed by Technical Specification IX.K. No record was found, however, of a subsequent UFTR Subcommittee review of the change.
b.
Procedure C.1 " Irradiated Fuel Handling" was changed to revision 3 on 3/20/78 as evidenced by the UFTR subcommittee chairman's signature.
No subcommittee minutes were found, however, to document their review.
Procedures D.4, D.5, D.6 and D.7 were signed by the UFTR Subcommittee c.
Chairman on 2/12/78. No subcommittee minutes were found, however, to 2166?S2
.
.
,
.
.5-
.
document their review on or prior to this date. Subcommittee minutes of 2/21/78, in fact, indicate a review of these procedures after their approval date by the chairman.
During the inspection the required documentation could not be found to demonstrate subcommittee a ction on these items.
The subcommittee documents being in a state of disarray contributed to the problem. The inspector stated that the issue of adyguate subcommittee review will remain unresolved pending the licensee's review and organization of the existing documentation (50-83/79-02-05).
11.
Review of Previous Outstanding Items Open item 77-01-08 from a previous inspection called for the licensee to complete Standard Operating Procedures E.2, E.4, and E.5.
The inspector noted that E.2 and E.5 are finished but that E.4 on auxiliary systems remains to be completed. The licensec agreed to identify safety related auxiliary systems, and implement procedures for them by July 1, 1980.
(50-85/79-02-06)
The inspector verified that the licensee has received copies of NRC bulletin 78-08, " Radiation Levels from Fuel Element Transfer Tubes", and responded appropriately. The licensee also has received for information NRC circulars 78-03, " Packaging Greater than Type A Quantities of Low Specific Activity Radioactive Material for Transport", and 79-08, " Attempted Extortion-Low Enrichment Uranium".
The inspector verified that the licensee has installed a backflow preventer in the city water supply line. Additionally, the licensee now uses a well as the normal supply of secondary system coolit.g water.
66 253