IR 05000113/1979001
| ML19282B408 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000113 |
| Issue date: | 01/24/1979 |
| From: | Faulkenberry R, Andrea Johnson, Johnston G NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19282B403 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-113-79-01, 50-113-79-1, NUDOCS 7903130346 | |
| Download: ML19282B408 (5) | |
Text
.
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF If!SPECTION AND Ef1FORCEMEllT REGIOil V Report tio.
50-113/79-01 Docket No.
50-113 License flo.
R-52 Safeguards Group Licensee:
University of Arizona College of Engineering Tucson, Arizona 85721 Facility Name:
Triga Mark I Inspection at:
Tucson, Arizona Inspection Conducted:
pnuary 9-11, 1979 J///f Inspectors:
>
/
v~-
-
G. W.
ohdston', Reactor' Inspector
_
'
/ Date Signed f/
/
W
/
'/ 7 9 A. b. Joh /on, Reactor Inspector
/
'/Date Signed Approved By:
Ed b-
//,29//9 B. H. Faulkenberry, Chiaf,4eactor Projects Date Signed
~
Section 2, Reactor (0perations and Nuclear Support Branch Summary:
Inspection on January 9-11,1979 (Report No. 50-113/79-01)
Areas Inspected: Routine, unannounced inspection of organization, logs and records; review and audit; requalification training; surveillance; experi-ments; and independent inspection effort. The inspection involved 25 inspector hours onsite by two fiRC inspectors.
Results:
Of the six areas inspected, no apparent items of noncompliance were identified in five areas; one apparent item of noncompliance was identified in one area (Deficiency - Failure to have records which verify an adequate 10 CFR 50.59(b) evaluation was performed - Paragraph 5).
79037303%,
IE:V Form 219 (2)
'
.
DETAILS
.
1.
Persons Contacted D. J. Hall, Assistant Dean, College of Engineering R. L. Seale, Head, Reactor Laboratory H. Doane, Supervisor, Reactor Laboratory R. W. Wells, Assistant Supervisor, Reactor Laboratory M. E. Wacks, Senior Licensed Operator, Professor All of the above were present at the exit interview.
2.
Organization F,mination of administrative records disclosed that the facility has been staffed sufficiently to meet or exceed technical specifi-cation requirements.
Dr. G. W. Nelson, the Reactor Laboratory Head, is now working for the IAEA in Vienna, Austria, on a two year assignment; Dr. R. L. Seale has taken his place until his return.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
3.
Review and Audit The inspectors examined all meeting minutes of the Reactor Committee for the year 1978. Membership composition of each meeting satisfied quorum requirements.
Meetings were held five times in 1978. The inspectors, however, pointed out to a licensee representative that the meeting schedule was irregular. The response was that it was difficult to schedule meetings with regularity around the school calendar. The licensee represent-ative indicated that the Reactor Committee would review in their next meeting a proposal to schedule future meetings on a more regular basis.
Three new experiments were reviewed by the Reactor Ccmmittee in 1978. Minutes of the meetings indicated that each experiment was approved. Audits were cor. ducted in accordance with techncial specifications and by persons who were independent of the function being audited.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identifie.
-2-
.
4.
Logs and Records Representative samples of the following logs and operating records for the period since the previous inspection were examined and dis-cussed with licensee personnel.
Preliminary Check Sheet Critical Approach Checklist Termination Checklist Pulsing Checklist Power Recorder Strip Chart Power Up-Grade and Instrument Log Irradiation Request for Neutron Activation Analysis Irradiation Request and Material Transfer Annual Checklist Monthly Checklist Fuel Element Inventory Sheets Core Loading Sheets No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
5.
Experiments The experimental program consists of nuclear engineering class experiments, irradiations in the lazy susan, irradiation of electronic components, and some irradiations in the pneumatic transfer system.
Irradiation request and material transfer forms were completed for experiments which showed the materials to be irradiated, the quantity of material, and an estimate of the activity produced. Records of the radiation levels asso-ciated with removal of the samples from the reactor were in the reactor log book.
During a review of the three new experiments conducted during the year, one experiment appeared to not have been reviewed for 10 CFR 50.59 considerations.
The experiement consisted of in-stalling an aluminum tank filled with graphite, weighing aproxi-mately 800 pounds, adjacent to the graphite reflector assembly surrounding the reactor core.
The top surface of the experi-mental assembly has three cavities for the insertion of samples for irradiation. The unit's purpose is to improve the thermal to fast neutron ratio for activation analysis irradiations.
The Reactor Committee meeting minutes of May 9,1977, indicate
'M t the unit's design and reactivity effects were reviewed in the meetin9 The mec randum requesting review and approval of the
-
,
,
-3-
.
thermal neutron irradiation facility; however, does not address these effects.
No other written documentation could be produced to indicate that a complete review was conducted pursuant to 10 CFR 50.59.
The facility was placed in the reactor tank via a written procedure that took into account the precautions of safety lines and jib crane capacity.
Licensee representa-tives stated that the installation went smoothly and presented no problems.
One item of noncompliance and no deviations were identified.
6.
Recualification Training The inspectors verified by discussions with operators and examination of records that the requalification program was being performed con-sistant with the program approved by the NRC. Records of attendance, examinations, reactivity manipulations, and supervisor evaluations for three individuals were verified to meet program requirements.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
7.
Surveillance Requirements Examination of records indicated that the surveillance requirements in Section 4.0 of the technical specifications were being met in a timely manner. Additionally, the records of two limiting conditions for operation (LCOs), which do not have specific surveillance re-quirements, were examined to verify that the; were not being exceeded. The LCOs involved were shutdown margin and the reac-tivity worth of individual experiment.=..
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
8.
Independent Inspection Effort A tour by the inspectors on the first day of the inspection confirmed that posting requirements were being met and housekeeping was in good order. A reactor startup and shutdown for the irradiation of hair samples for neutron activation analysis were observed by the inspectors.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identifie ~
,
.
_4
9.
Exit Interview The inspectors met with licensee representatives (denoted in Paragraph 1) at the conclusion of the inspection on January 11, 1979.
The inspectors summarized the purpose and scope of the inspection and apprised the licensee representatives of the apparent item of noncompliance (discussed in Paragraph 5). The licensee representatives made no commitments beyond tho a pre-viously stated in this report.