IR 05000083/1987004
| ML20236Q269 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000083 |
| Issue date: | 11/10/1987 |
| From: | Burnett P, Jape F NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20236Q264 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-083-87-04, 50-83-87-4, NUDOCS 8711190286 | |
| Download: ML20236Q269 (7) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:I
* .
e ac oq p '" ,3J & UNITED STATES g' o
,j* NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION 11
j g 101 MARIETTA ST., I eg,, ATLANTA, GEonGIA 30323 I Report No.: 50-083/87-04 Licensee: University of Florida 202 Nuclear Sciences Center ; Gainesville, FL 32601 )
Docket No.: 50-83 License No.: R-56 Facility Name: University of Florida Training Reactor Inspection Conducted: October 19 - 22, 1987 Inspector: mg- // -rd - 8 8 P 7. 86Miett - Date Signed . Approved by: [[ w[v n-/o-P b l / s F. Jape,/Seftion Chief Date Signed Engineering Branch Division of Reactor Safety SUMMARY Scope: This routine, unannounced inspection addressed the routine, biennial inspection of Class II research reactor Results: No violations or deviations were identified.
Q"18$2I SEhj3 G L __ _ __ . - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ - _ - - _ _ - _ _ . . __-
, '
. l
!
!
l I
REPORT DETAl '
)l Persons Contacted l l
t.icensee Employees
*J. S. Tulenko, Chairman, Nuclear Engineering Sciences Department ! * G. Vernetsen, Director of Nuclear Facilities l P. M. Whaley, Reactor Manager l Other licensee employees contacted included technicians, operators, and i office personne ] * Attended exit interview Exit Interview ,
l The inspection scope and findings were summarized on October 22, 1987, with those persons indicated in paragraph 1 above. The inspector de-scribed the areas inspected and discussed in detail the inspection find-ings. No dissenting comments were received from the licensee. The licensee did not identify as proprietary any of the materials provided to j or reviewed by the inspector during this inspectio Inspector followup item 083/87-04-01: Verbatim compliance with procedures to be a specific topic in the operator requalification program - paragraph . Licensee Action on Previous Enforcement Matters (Closed) VIO 083/86-01-01: Failure to maintain records of facility changes ! as required by 10 CFR 50.59(b). Documented, acceptable safety reviews for l the items identified in the previous report as well as for recent modifi- ! cations were found in the licensee's records. This item is close l I Unresolved Items No unresolved items were identifie . Initial Interview (40750) Discussion with the facility staff confirmed that the facility organiza- l tion is in conformance with Technical Specification 6.2.1 as described in
'
figure 6.1. There have been no changes in the organization since the last inspection, nor have there been any changes in' personnel at level 3 or highe ! l I l
- ___ L
y
, :. .
2-
<
The Reactor Safety Review Subcommittee (RSRS) completed its audits for calendar years 1985 and 1986-in a timely manner. Review of the audits-confirmed that the requirements of Technical: Specification 6.2.5 were satisfied, The contents of the audits reflect serious-consideration on the part of each of the four auditors rather.than'a; pro forma approach to the tasks. No major problems were revealed by the audits. Minor problems uncovered were' addressed promptly and effectively by the facility '
,
!
managemen In calendar year 1987, the licensee has made two reports in accordance: with Technical Specification 6.6.2. . One was addressed. in , inspection' report 87-01. .The second, an overpower trip on April 1,1987, was repor.t-ed by telephone on April 2 and by letter dated April-13,1987. The-lette accurately describes the event and makes commitments.for corrective , actions. Those actions, revisions to operating procedures for startup and i steady-state operation in automatic ' control, have been completed and are acceptable. The event has been reviewed and corrective actions;have'been ! approved by the RSRS. See also paragraph , The inspector's review of the service request log for the period February: 1986 to September 1987 identified only .four experiments sufficiently-different from those performed routinely.to justify further review. Those ! experiments are discussed further in paragraph 7.d. A random sample o ! dozen request forms was reviewed for completeness. All were filled out appropriatel No violations or deviations were identifie . Initial Facility Tour 'I The inspector toured the facility with the Director of Nuclear Facilities shortly after arrival on site. Housekeeping in the reactor hay and control room was acceptable. No equipment was tagged out of service. A weekly checkout was in progress, and no equipment was identified as . " i noperabl Postings in the control room include the individual NRC letters.for each operator confirming a current license, listing the license expiration date (none imminent) and restrictions. A status board shows the requalifica-tion status of each operator, and all were current.with respect to re-quired manipulations and checkouts.of the facility. A later review of monthly operating summaries showed all licensed operators.to be curren . with the requirements -for manipulations.and checkout Review of standard operating procedures (SOP)-for pre-operation'al checks R (SOP A.1), startup (50P A.2), operation at power (SOP A.3), shutdown (S0P ' s A.4), experiments (SOP A.5), secondary cooling (S0P A.6), and control j blade worth (S0P A.7) confirmed they reflect- the as-built facilit '
'l
?
E_______u_1_______________z_ _ _ . _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . -
-
.
'3
]
l No fuel handling has taken place since the last operations inspection (86-01, February 1986). Facility management expects no fuel movement 1 prior to replacing the core with low-enriched fuel, ij l Fire fighting equipment was observed to have current inspection tag No violations or deviations were identifie . Records Review Logs and Records , Approximately 50% of the operations log sheets for the period ] February 1986 to September 1987 were reviewed. Log entries were l complete as appropriate. Specific attention was given to power level j entries for the nuclear instruments and primary coolant temperature l rise and the experiments in process. No instances of overpower operation were identified. Additionally, the chart records for the q linear and Log N power recorder were reviewed for the period February .] 25, 1987 to March 16, 1987, and no instance of overpower operation was observe The Maintenance !.cg was reviewed for the period January 9, 1986 to ) October 12, 1987. For unusual or complex maintenance _ specific repair 1 and post-repair test procedures were written, as for examples mainte- i nance item 87-3, Replacement of Bearings for Primary Coolant Purifi- { cation Loop Pum The most significant maintenance activity appeared to be item 87-29 j to correct the failure of shim-safety blade 2 to withdraw on deman { The root cause was determined to be the solidification of twenty- l year-old lubricant in the gear bo Trouble shooting also identified l a modification to the method of retaining the outer bearing on the ! shaft to be advantageous. The proposed modification was evaluated under 10 CFR 50.59 evaluation number 87-15 prior to implementatio i A conclusion of no unreviewed safety question was obtained. The modification was incorporated into a reviewed and approved procedure to modify and repair all four blade drives. Once the work was completed, and before the reactor was returned to service, surveil-lance tests were performed to confirm acceptable drive and blade drop times. Performance in all aspects was acceptable. The event was reviewed by the licensee and the RSRS, and a conclusion that it was not reportable under Technical Specification 6.6.2 was reache Since neither the initial event nor the modifications affected the ability of the blades to drop in response to a scram signal, the licensee's evaluations and conclusions are acceptabl The licensee was asked if there were other systems that did not receive regular surveillance or maintenance and might be candidates for failure. Management stated that such a review had been per-formed, and no candidate systems or subsystems were identified, i l u ;
_
._ - -_ - _ _ - _ _ _
_
* - h . -4 . Procedures The responsibility of operators'and' senior operators to' adhere to verbatim compliance to procedures is specifically addressedLin the'
operator training program. However, the requalification program . .. lecture. outlines- do not include verbatim compliance as specific topic for discussion.- The licensee has made a' commitment. to make an appropriate change to the requalification program by November 30, 1987. (Inspector followup item 083/87-04-01: Verbatim compliance-with procedures to be a specific . topic.in the operator requalifi-
' '
'
cation. program.)
The level of review and approval of new and' revised procedures;is'
-adequately addressed in standard operating procedure (SOP) 0.1 L (Revision 1), Operating Document Controls; This procedure also.'
describes the approvals required for making temporary.or permanent ' changes to procedure SOP-A.1 (Revision 13), Pre-Operational Checks, accomplishes the th daily and weekly surveillance required by Technical Specification Table 4.1 and Table 3.2. Quarterly surveillance.of scram functions-defined in Table 3.2 are accomplished by SOP- All procedures in the console operations manual were up-to-dat l .. Surveillance The following surveillance completed in the time period February - 1986 to October 1987 were reviewed for completeness and timeliness: S-1, Blade Drop Time Checks, was performed on' February 13, 1986, August 25, 1986, January 27, 1987, May 13, 1987, and September 30,- 1987. Satisfactory results were reported in all cases. .The inspec-tor independently analyzed some of the recorder time traces and-obtained results in agreement with the. licensee' S-2, Blade Reactivity Worth Determination, was performed'on February 19, 1986 and March 5, 1987. There was good consistency betwee measurements of shutdown margin and reactivity excess for the two sets of measurement A-3, Temperature Coefficient of Reactivty, was last measured on November 19, 1986. The annual measurement was in progress:at the conclusion of this inspection, and the inspector witnessed part of the measurement, which was being performed without deviation.- A-2, Nuclear Instrument Calibration Check and Heat Balance, was performed on February 27, 1986 and March 26,' 1987. ' There was no : significant drift in.. instrument readings in that period.' E - . _ - - _ _ _ _ _ __
-. ' ' '
i )
..
Q-1, Quarterly Scram Checks, was performed .at the appropriate fre o quency in the period February 3, 1986 to August.27, 1987. 'No. opera-- tional problems or significant drifts were-identified-in these surveillance.
. '
,d. Experiments A review of the experiment log forithe.per'iod February 1986.to October 1987 revealed only .four. experiments 'that differed from those performed routinely over'the past several years. They are discussed briefly below:
Service request 86-39 was for the testing'.of a .new pneumatic conveyor (rabbit) system. The mechanical system had been checked' out'of the , reactor prior to installation. This Jtest measured the reactivit worth of the system, nearly negligible... the flux at the irradiation position. and ~ established the shielding requirements.; Prior..'to.- installation the system had been appropriately reviewed and approved
' '
as a modification to the facilit Service requests 86-40 and 87-09 were:for neutron radiography,;which constituted a new application of existing, unmodified irradiation-facilitie From a safety standpoint, this work was classified as~a materials irradiation similar to .others performed in the- past. Henc no review by the RSRS was require Service request 87-49 was from the Gas Core Reactor Research project and was for the irradiation of fission chambers containing UF6 . The maximum content of any chger was 24.4 mg of the gas.or 16.5 mg of uranium containing 0.3%.U . The maximum heat rate was calculate to be 0.03 milliwatts, and.the maximum. fission ~ product activity was calculated to be 9.33 microcuries. The RSRS- considered- both the radiation and chemical hazards in its review. The irradiation facility includes secondary containment for the gas along with-exhaust filtering and neutralization. A review in_ accordance with 10'.
.
CFR 50.59 ~ concluded there was _no unresolved safety question-in'.the ' proposed experimen Service request 87-53 was similar to 87-49 except that the_ fission chambers contained plated, much less volatile, . uranium with fill-gases of either a argon-nitrogen mixture or helium. . The reviews and evaluations were essentially the same as for 87-4 e. Drills Quarterly emergency drills were held with acceptable frequency from ~ April 1986 to July 1987. A drill .is scheduled.for-late October 198 Drill scenarios were usually. based upon the uncontrolled release of reactor-irradiated material to the facility.with the-material choicel typical'of current activities. The drills revealed some.' equipment problems, which were promptly repaired and 'some weaknesses in
.
a _m_m _mm.u.__ _A-A m
- _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _
6
,
f I training faculty and students in the proper response to alarm Those weaknesses were remedied by counseling the non-responding personnel
:
No violations or deviations were identifie ; 8. Followup of Open Items (92700, 92701, 92702)
(Closed) Event of April 1,1987, overpower trip. The licensee's correc- .
tive actions of counseling the operator and revising procedures 50P A.2, i Reactor Startup (Revision 12, May 1987), and 50P A.3 , Operations at Power (Revision 11, May 1987), appear adequate to prevent recurrence. It was
'
noted that all safety systems functioned properly and that the setpoint was barely exceede (Closed) Violation 083/86-01-01: Failure to maintain records of facility changes as required by 10 CFR 50.59(b). The missing safety reviews were-reconstructed and entered into the facility record In addition appro-priate safety reviews were completed and in the records for activities conducted since the violatio >
(Closed) Inspector followup item 083/86-01-02: Review SAR paragraph 7. .i and revise as necessary by August 31, 1986. Eight pages of the SAR were ]
revised appropriately and submitted for review by NRR on July 18, 198 l (Closed) Inspector followup item 083/86-01-03: Review CORA calculations for proper identification of materials and revise SAR as needed by August ! 31,1986. A revision to the SAR had been submitted prior to inspection I 86-01, but the copy provided the inspector had not been updated. Since ' then all copies of the SAR have been updated according to the license This item is close (Closed) Inspector followup item 083/86-01-04: Evaluate storage and release of Wigner energy in graphite by My 31, 1987. An analysis of , Wigner energy buildup in the reactor graphite was completed and added to i the SAR as Appendix 15G. It was submitted for review by NRR on May 29, 1987. the analysis concludes that a release of Wigner energy is not credible over the licensed lifetime of the reacto No Violations or deviations were identifie . _ . _ _ _ _ . . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ }}