IR 05000113/1982001

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
IE Insp Rept 50-113/82-01 on 820505-07.No Noncompliance Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Followup on Open Items & Items of Noncompliance,Organization,Logs & Records,Review & Audit Requalification Training,Procedures & Surveillance
ML20053C783
Person / Time
Site: 05000113
Issue date: 05/14/1982
From: Kirsch D, Willett D, Zwetzig G
NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V)
To:
Shared Package
ML20053C778 List:
References
50-113-82-01, 50-113-82-1, NUDOCS 8206020557
Download: ML20053C783 (6)


Text

g o

UNITED STATES

[

g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION y

REGION V

g

$

g 1450 MARIA LANE. SUITE 260 o'

WALNUT CREEK, CALIFORNIA 94596 May 17,1932 Docket No. 50-113 University of Arizona College of Engineering Tucson, Arizona 85721 Attention:

Dr. R. H. Gallagher, Dean College of Engineering Gentlemen:

Subject: NRC Inspection of TRIGA Fark I Facility This refers to the routine inspection conducted by Messrs. D. F. Kirsch and D. J. Willett of this office on May 5, 6 and 7,1982, of activities authorized by NRC License No. R-52, and to the discussion of our findings held by Mr. Kirsch with you and other members of your staff at the conclusion of the inspection.

Areas examined during this inspection are described in the enclosed inspection report. Within these areas, the inspection consisted of selective examinations of procedures and representative records, interviews with personnel, and observations by the inspectors.

l No items of noncompliance with NRC requirements were identified within the scope of this inspection.

In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790(a), a copy of this letter and the enclosure will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room unless you notify this office, by telephone, within ten days of the date of this letter and submit written aoplication to withhold information contained therein within thirty days

'

of the date of this letter.

Such application must be consistent with the requirements of 2.790(b)(1).

Should you have any questions concerning this inspection, we will be glad to discuss them with you.

Sincerely, i

e D. M. Sternberg, Chief Reactor Operations Projects Branch

,

l

,

l 8 2 0 6 0 2 0SS7p l

._.

.-

__

_

.

-

-

-.

. _ _ _. -.

- - _ - _ -

_ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

.

University of Arizona-2-May 17, 1982 Enclosure:

Inspection Report

No. 50-113/82-01

.,

m--

si

.

U. S. NUCLEAR REGUL\\ TORY COMMISSION

s

REGION V

Report No.

c;0-ll 3/82-01

Docket No.

50-113

License No.

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:

May 5-7, 1982

gg_ gg

Inspectors:

'm

( ;

,

D. F. Tirsch, Reactor Inspector

'

Date Signed

O L ? tab $ N A W

[- 4/-k2

D.J.Wille(t,ReactorInspector

Date Signed

Date Signed

Approved By:

[L

g.g.gg

@G. I3. Ntzig, Chief, Reactor Projects Section 1

Date Signed

Reactor Operations Projects Branch

Su= mary:

Inspection on May 5-7, 1982 (Report No. 50-113/82-01)

Areas Inspected: Routine, unannounced inspection of follow up on open items and

items of noncompliance; organization; logs and records; review and audit; requali-

fication training; procedures; surveillance; experiments; and independent

inspection effort. The inspection involved 22 inspector hours onsite by two

NRC inspectors.

Results:

No items of noncompliance were identified.

RV Fcrm 219 (2)

.

O

.-

,

.-.

~

-,, -

--

-

-

-c

-.,

- -

-

,

DETAILS

,

1.

Persons Contacted

,

<

  • R. H. Gallagher, Dean, College of Engineering
  • R. L. Seale, Head, Department of Nuclear and Energy Engineering
  • G. W. Nelson, Director, Reactor Laboratory.
  • B. D. Ganapol, Chairman, Reactor Committee

H. Doane, Reactor Supervisor

  • Denotes those present at exit interview.

E.

Follow-up on Items of Noncompliance'

a.

(Closed) Noncompliance (50-113/80-01-01): Failure of Reactor

Committee to meet quarterly. By letter dated April 25~, 1980, the

licensee stated that future meetings would be held quarterly

as required by Technical Specifications. The. inspectors verified

that the licensee had since. held Reactor Canmittee meetings on a

,

quarterly basis.

!'

b.

(Closed) Noncomoliance (50-113/80-01-03): Failure to operate the

facility ventilation system as required by Technical Specifications.

The inspectors observed, by sampling of the preliminary checklists,

that verification of ventilation system operation was conducted each

'.

time the Preliminary Checklist was completed in preparation for

critical operation. The Preliminary Checklist contains a requirement

to verify ventilation system operation. This requirement was also

a topic of a training meeting held May 5, 1982.

3.

Follow-up on Previously Identified Open Items

a.

(Closed) Open Item (50-113/80-01-02):

Procedures Manual did not

'

contain procedures for two Technical Specification required

surveillances. The inspectors reviewed the procedures manual

and found that procedures for determination of control rod worth

and calorimetric calibration of safety channels had been included in

j

the procedures manual.

b.

(Closed) Open Item (50-113/80-01-04):

Safety evaluations for

facility changes, tests, or untried experiments. The inspectors

examined the licensee's controls governing internal reviews conducted

pursuant to 10 CFR 50.59 and found the system adequately complies

with regulatory requirements.

.

.

.

-2-

4.

Organization, Logs, and Records

The inspectors verified that the facility operating organization was

consistent with technical specification requirements.

It was further

verified by observation and inspection of the operating records, on a

sampling basis, that the minimum staffing required for operation was in

accordance with technical specification requirements. The inspectors

also examined representative samples of the following logs and records,

generated subsequent to March 1980, for evidence of significant problems:

Monthly Checklist

Annual Checklist

preliminary Checklist

Critical Approach Checklist

Termination Checklist

Pulsing Checklist

Reactor Operations Log

Fuel Element Inventory

Reactor Upgrade and Instrument Log

Reactor Upgrade Maintenance Log

Irradiation Request and M3terial Transfer Log

Management Log Review Documentation-

'

_.

e

-

,

No significant problems were identified by the examination of representative

samples of these records.

The inspector examined the applicable records t$ determine, on a sampling

basis, if the following maintenance activities were being performed-in.

'

accordance with regulatory or administrative requirements:

Calibration of Continuous Air Monitor

r

l

Calibration of Water Monitor

!

Calibration of Safety Channels

.

Replacement of Demineralizer Filters and Resins

,

No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.

5.

Review and Audit

The membership of the Reactor Committee was determined through

discussions with the licensee's representatives and the Reactor

Committee Chairman. The discussions indicated that, while the membership

conformed to Technical Specification requirements, letters appointing

each member were not centrally filed. The licensee agreed to establish

a file documenting Reactor Connittee membership appointments.

The inspectors reviewed the minutes of Reactor Committee meetings held

from September 1980 through March 1982. The minutes indicated

compliance with the requirements regarding meeting frequency and

quorum.

. -

..

.

_

_ - - -

._.__

_ _ _. _

,

. ~. _. _ _

i

.

-3-

The inspectors examined one facility modification which had been completed.

This modification involved the replacement of a p)wer supply for the

right safety channel high voltage. The matter had been reviewed and

approved by the Reactor Committee and appropriately documented.

No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.

6.

Operator Requalification Training

The inspectors reviewed representativ< samples of requalification

training records and operating logs.

Based on this review, and

discussions with two operators, the inspectors concluded that training,

training records, reactivity manipulations, and supervisory evaluations

appeared to conform to regulatory requirements.

-

No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.

7.

Procedures

The inspector examined the facility Administrative ' Procedure UARR100

for compliance with technical specifications requirements regarding

Reactor Committee activities. The administrative procedure appeared

deficient in the implementation of the following requirements of technical

.

,

specifications:

a.

The responsibilities assigned to the Reactor Committee by Technical

Specification paragraphs 6.2.b, 6.3., 6.4 and 6.5 were not adequately

included in Procedure UARR100.

b.

The Reactor Committee composition requirenents of Technical

Specification paragraph 6.2.c were not adequately defined in

UARR100.

For example, the procedure did not reference or name

the Reactor Committee Chairman, member' ship or designated alternates.

The inspector, however, observed that the Chairman and membership had

been assigned responsibilities by letters although those letters were

not in any central location.

It was further observed that membership

assignments had been carefully chosen to consist of a multi-disciplined,

highly qualified representation.

c.

The requirements of Technical Specification paragraph 6.2.d (regarding

a written statement of committee authority, subject preview, and

administrative provisions) were not adequately included in UARR100.

The Reactor Committee Charter, adopted April 26, 1976, contained many

of the technical specification requirements, however, the charter

was not referenced by UARR100 and was not a controlled document.

In addition, the technical specification requirement for meeting

minutes of Reactor Committee meetings was not included as a requirement

of UARR100, although the licensee had prepared detailed minutes

documenting committee meeting '

.

-4-

,

!

d.

The requirements of Technical Specification paragraph 6.2.f, regarding

Reactor Committee meeting frequency, were not adequately included in

UARR100.

,

The licensee agreed to evaluate the identified administrative procedure

.

deficiencies and effect appropriate resolution. This area will be examined

further during a future inspection. -(50-113/82-01-01)

The inspectors observed that a' controlled set of approved procedure was

available to operators in the control area.

No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.

8.

Surveillance

'

The inspectors examined the licensee's methods.for complying with

technical specification limiting conditions for operation contained

in paragraphs 3.4, 3.6 and 4.0.

That the licensee had complied with

the applicable requirements was verified by examination of appropriate

checklists, records, and surveillance documentation.

I

No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified

9.

Experiments

The inspectors examined documentation of Reactor-Committee review and

approval of three experiments performed since March 1980.

These experiments

involved measurement of void coefficient of reactivity, irradiation

of various samples of material, and local area radiation measurements

resulting from a fuel element exposed in air. The inspectors

'

i

determined that the Reactor Committee had appropriately reviewed

and approved the experiments. The review suitably considered regulatory

-

requirements, potential hazards, radiological factors, and reactivity

i

effects.

No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.

.

10.

Independent Inspection Effort

l

The inspectors examined the cleanliness and or' der of the control-and

l

reactor areas and observed that the areas appeared well ordered and

very clean.

By discussions with licensee management and review of-documentation

i

the inspectors determined that management had exercised a considerable

effort in the direction and oversight of reactor operations and

'

administrative control.

'

No items of noncompliance or deviations were, identified.

t

0

.w

v,

y

,,__....,,

,,-.,,......_,m.

,,~4,y

...w.

,m.,,_.,_...

_..-y.,

..,, _,,,

__,.r

.._,-__,_,,,.,_,ec.

,,-,_,,.--_,_.

,r

,,.-._ -

.

.-

_-.._..

.

..

_.

_ ~. -

.

- - -.

.-

.

....

.

.

.

,

9

-5-

-

.

}

!

r

r

!

11.

Exit Interview

The inspectors met with licensee representatives (denoted in paragraph 1)

.;

i

at the conclusion of the inspection on May 7,1982, and summarized

the inspection scope and findings.

!

!

I

I

i

I

!

!

.

'

i

<

'

i

,

.

l

'

<

I

i

i

i

l

i

i

f

,

i

i

u

I

<

'

.

..

.

,

c

i

i

s

r

i

i

.c

d

?'.

'

i

s

.,

I

-

.-.,.-e.,-..._

m.-

.m.~..,.._,

-, _,.. -. _.. - -. _. _., _ _.m..

,,.-.-- _ -

--r,

,..-.-...__,-.-.c

. -. -. -

-.---,-,.--....,e