IR 05000113/1985001
| ML20137X630 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000113 |
| Issue date: | 11/22/1985 |
| From: | Cillis M, Yuhas G NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20137X622 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-113-85-01, 50-113-85-1, NUDOCS 8512100587 | |
| Download: ML20137X630 (10) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:U , , f n%Q] l} } L > -~ y; , y 3,qq g, t 7,w39 -g g .: ' r, , . 3._, , v 4.. j, e , , f 3, _ '_V - l ,nn: 4; s y n
- &,.,-
, l ~'l , \\ 7,0 l >, ({Y+ A -j 's,. (, _ {{' ' \\ ,: .
i r ser
s, - , s .V ", " , (', ' [,, _ , v., i n 'h ... ' y.
g ' U.
S'. NUCLEAR REGULATG13 COMMISSION.
, c . . n , _ m;
- . C 4 ',
s.. '
.E
REGION V
- ,. . .m
, ' ,' Report No.. 50-113/85-01? " ~ , . - , ~ _ - - ' Docket No. 50-113 - - -License No. R-52 , Licensee:-University of Arizona- . ' College of Engineering , Tucson,' Arizona 85721 . , Facility Name: ' University of Arizona.Research' Reactor, TRIGA Mark 1 " ^ . Inspection at: Tucson, Arizona.
. Inspection conducte'd: ' November 5-8, 1985 inspector: D @ k-h [a u 22/M ~ ~M. Cilli tadiaclon.
ialist Date Signed.
-Approved by: bhd6m ul12,1d
' ~ G. P. Yu Qa Chief Date S'igned , Facilitie M adiological Protection Section- . , TSummary: , TInspectionion November 5-8, 1985 (Report No. 50-113/85-01): Areas Inspected: Routine unannounced inspection by a regionally based.
, , -inspector of facility operations, including organization, radiation protection.
program, environmental-monitoring program, emergency preparedness program, review'and audits, facility operating procedures, training, surveys, operating-logs _and-records, transportation activities, reactor operator and senior.
. reactor operator requalification program, IE Information Notices, followup on , previous-inspection Atems'and-a tour of the facility. During this inspection, Inspection Procedures 39745, 40750, 41745, 42745, 61745, 69745, 82745, 83743, 86740, 92700, 92701 and'92717 were performed. The' inspection involved 30 hours of onsite time by one inspector.
s Results: Of the sixteen areas inspected, no violations or deviations were identified.
> k t
\\
. ^ v%F * . f G o T ' ' , ,' ' V i g a g y . , . . . k ' %. g '8 i b [' ' , -y , s -- * , .( ,, , , '
' ~ l.
- _ _ _, . _____,, - ' ..
,
T F 4 g . > ' s, ' ,, , , , - a : l?a -,s -.* s
' ' DETAILS' q j,,, % ~f [ ~
- p j
1)'. ' Persons'Conta'eted $ b ' ' ,, ,l: ." . >.
,
- W. D. Cosart, Associate Dean, College of Engineering and Mines s
- R.1 L.-Seale, Head; Department of Nuclear and Energy Engineering
- G. W.'Nelso'n, Nuclear Reactor. Director H. J. Duane, Reactor Supervisor,
q-
- B.1 Westerman, Director Radiation Control Office H.-R,...Hueston II, Assistant Chief of Police iM. C. Young,' Assistant Director Radiation Control Office B. O.,Ganapol, Reactor-Committee Chairman
,, ~
- C. K. Irwin, Radiation' Control 0fficer B. B. Piner, Chief,l Radiation, Control'0fficer
- D..L. Hetrick, Professor. Nuclear and Energy Engineering
,
- Denotes those' individuals attending the exit interview on November 8, 1985.
-' 2)' Organization, Logs, and Records The' inspector verified that the-organization was-consistent with Technical Specifications, Section 6.1.
It was further verified by observation 'and an examination of operating records that the minimum staffing required for operation was'in accordance with Technical-Specification and licensee procedures. The inspector examined representative samples of the following logs and records generated during the period of 1983 through October 1985: Fuel Element Inventory
- Irradiation. Request and Material Transfer Logs
__ Reactor Upgrade Surveillance Log' Reactor. Operation Log Monthly Check' List Annual Check List - Preliminary Check-List Termination Check List Pulsing Check List ,- Critical Approach Check List - Reactor Operator / Senior Reactor Operator requalification records (lesson. plans, retraining attendance records, written
- examinations, reactivity manipulations, and supervisory evaluations)
General Employee Training Records Emergency Preparedness Training Records Survey Records Instrument Calibration Records Audit and. Review Reports Procedures.
'The examination disclose'd that the licensee's. reactor ope'ation, general r employee's training, review and audit program, emergency preparedness . __
r ,. u,.. - - - , ,
,., ~,. t- - ' , h.
^ '-, [, oy-h'$ - \\
'
,
- - -.
. 4_
& E L "y % . J t I if - program,Tenvironmental monitoring program, reactor operator requalification program, sand radiation protection program are well documented. i
, < No =violat' ions or deviat' ions were identified.
t 3).
Reactor Operations a).-~ Experiments , . ._ .
' The_ inspector examined documentation of the Reactor Committee's ~ review of experiments performed since 1982.
The: inspector determined that the Reactor Committee had appropriately reviewed and approved'new experiments performed since 1982. The reviews and approvals were accomplished in accordance . with established procedures and the reviews appeared to consider the _ ," regulatory requirements.: potential. hazards, radiological hazards, and reactivity effects.~.The reviews and approval of experiments appeared to be consistent.with Technical Specifications Section' 6.8, " Review of Experiments".
No' violations or deviations were identified.
b) Surveillance The inspector' verified through the review of' records identified in paragraph 2 that the licensee's surveillance program was consistent with the requirements prescribed in Technical Specifications, Section 4.0,'"Surve111ance Requirements" and Section 3.0, Limiting Conditions for Operations".
, ' The inspector verified the technical adequacy of the following procedures that are utilized for performing the_ surveillance prescribed in Technical Specifications. Section 4.
UARR-102 UARR-103 UARR-107 UARR-122 UARR-125 UARR-126 UARR-131 The examination disclosed that the surveillances were performed at a frequency that meets or exceeds T.S. requirements.
It appeared that the surveillances were performed in'accordance with the applicable procedures identified above.
I No violations or deviations were identified.
c) Procedures > 4,
,_.
. . ~
The inspector examined the facility operating procedures for compliance with Technical Specifications, Section 6.3, " Operating Procedures". Selected portions of the following procedures were reviewed: , UARR-100.. Administrative and Operating Procedure (Rev. 9/26/84) UARR-101, Emergency. Procedures (Rev. 9/26/84) UARR-102,* Procedure for Semi-Annual Visual Inspection of the Transient Rod Drive Cylinder and Air Supply System (Rev.
6/81) UARR-103, Procedures for Calibration of Particulate Air Monitor (Rev. 10/24/84) UARR-107, Procedures for Control Element Removal and Inspection UARR-110 Procedures for Performing Irradiation in Irradiation Facilities or in Water Outside the Reactor Core (Rev.
2/24/84) UARR-122, Procedure for Measurement of Control Rod Drop Times (Rev. 3/9/82)
UARR-125, Procedure for Power Calibrations of the University of Arizona TRIGA Reactor (Rev. 6/81) UARR-126 Procedures for Control Rod Calibration of the University of Arizona Reactor (Rev. 6/81) UARR-129, Procedures for the Conduct of Operating Personnel in the Control Room and Reactor Room (Rev. 9/30/81) UARR-130, Procedure for Review and Performance of Experiments (Rev. 5/7/82) UARR-131. Procedures for Calibration of Area Radiation Monitors and Neutron Survey Meter (Rev. 9/7/84) UARR-132. Procedures for Maintenance of the Emergency Kit and for Operators Emergency Training (9/26/84) The inspector observed that a control set of approved procedures was available to operators in the control room.
It was further determined by observation that the procedures used by the operators were properly approved and utilized. The inspector verified by means of a walk through that Administrative and Operating Procedure, UARR-100 could accomplish its intended purpose.
No violations or deviations were identified.
d) Operator Requalification Program The inspector examined representative samples of the records identified in paragraph 2 for the purpose of verifying that the , licensee's reactor operators requalification program was consistent with the NRC approved program of August 29, 1974 and 10 CFR Part 55, " Operators License".
The inspector was informed that a new policy for assuring each reactor operator performed the required amount of reactor checkouts and reactor startups was recently established because'of a problem identified by the reactor supervisor.
- - - -
,, .__ _ _ _.__-_____ ____ _____, l - , ?e
h Based on this examination and discussions with the Nuclear Reactor Director and Reactor Supervisor, the inspector concluded that the licensee's program was being maintained at a level that met or ' exceeded the regulatory requirements.
, No violations or deviations were identified.
e).
Review and Audit The inspector verified that the licensee's review and audit program' was consistent with Technical Specifications, Section 6.2, " Review".
Reactor Committee minutes for the period of 1983 through October 1985 were reviewed and discussions were held with Reactor Committee members.
} , 'The examination' disclosed that the Reactor Committee met at a - . frequency which was consistent"with or exceeded that required by th.
Technical Speci.fications. The inspector discussed at the exit ' interview the,need to' improve documentation of audits conducted by " the Reactor, Committee members. ^ g No violations.or. deviations were identified.
, 4) Radiation Protection a) Postingand'Labeking' , ' iTheiNspect'orverifiedthatthe' licensee'spostingandlabeling . - practices were consiste't with 10 CFR Part 19.11 and 10 CFR Part n 20:203 requirements.
No violations or deviations were identified.
b) General Employee's Training (GET) The licensee's CET program for assuring compliance with 10 CFR Part 19.12. " Instructions to Workers" was examined.
Training attendance records, training lesson plans, and written examinations that were administered were reviewed.
The inspector concluded that the licensee's GET program was consistent with 10 CFR 19.12.
No violations or deviations were identified.
I c) Radioactive Material Transfers / Shipments An examination of the licensee's program for assuring compliance with 10 CFR Part 71, " Packaging and Transportation of Radioactive Material" and Department of Transportation 49 CFR Parts 171-173 was conducte,-- , m. -
. L
ym.. . ., , - - g .,?, ,
, - +,
' w . < l:'z - [ . , ' ~,
The examination disclosed ' hat transfers and/or shipments of t . radioactive materials-are made thorugh the University's State of .n Arizona radioactive material licensee.
' No violations oor deviations were identified.
[ d). ' Personnel Monitoring The' licensee's program for assuring compliance with 10 CFR Part 20.202, " Personnel Monitoring" was examined.
. Personnel monitoring records for the period 1983 through October 1985 were examined.
s The examination disclosed that the licensee's personnel monitoring program was consistent with the requirements prescribed in 10 CFR Part 20.101, " Radiation Dose Standards for Individuals in Restricted Areas", 10 CFR Part 20.102, "Determinaton of Prior Dose", and 10 CFR Part 20.104, " Exposure of Minors".
No violations or deviations were identified, e) Surveys . The licensee's program for assuring compliance with 10 CFR Part 20.201, " Surveys", 10 CFR Part 20.5, " Units of Radioactivity", 10 CFR Part 20.103, " Exposure of Individuals...in Air In Restricted Areas", 10 CFR Part 20.105, " Permissible Levels of Radiation in Unrestricted Areas" and 10 CFR Part 20.401, " Records of Surveys, Radiation Monitoring, and Disposal" was examined.
Survey records for the period 1983 through October 1985 were reviewed.
The examination disclosed that the licensee's program met or exceeded the regulatory requirements related to this topic.
No violations or deviations were identified.
f) Instrument Calibration Records associated with the calibration and testing of portable radiation detection instruments and the radiation monitoring instruments prescribed in Technical Specifications, Section 3.4, " Reactor Instrumentation" and Section 4.4, " Radiation Monitoring Equipment" were examined.
The examination disclosed that the licensee's program for testing and calibration of radiation detection instruments was consistent with the T.S. and either met or exceeded the recommendations prescribed in ANSI N323, " Radiation Protection Instrumentation Test and Calibration" and procedures established pursuant to T.S., Section 6.3, " Operating Procedures". The licensee's staff informed the inspector that the facility had just recently acquired a used
4 , i e r -...
. -. .. . - -
e v .. .
effluent radiation monitoring system that is capable of measuring gaseous (e.g. Argon-41) radioactivity. The licensee's staff indicated that the monitor would be refurbished, calibrated, and , used at the reactor facility.
No violations or deviations were identified.
g) Solid Waste / Liquid Wastes The licensee's staff informed the inspector that no liquid waste is generated from reactor operations and that solid radioactive waste generated are minimal (e.g. approximately two cubic per year).
The reactor pool water is routinely sampled (e.g. monthly) for radioactivity and solid wastes are packaged and transferred to an approved burial site in accordance with the University's State of Arizona radioactive material license.
The results of reactor pool water samples for the period of 1983 through October 1985 were reviewed. The review did not disclose any radioactivity 1cvels above the Minimum Detectable Activity (MDA) (e.g. approximately 1.0 E-7 microcuries per milliliters (uCi/ml) established by the licensee's analysis program.
No violations or deviations were identified.
5) Environmental Monitoring a) Caseous Releases Annual releases of Argon-41 are determined by calculations based on the production of Argon-41 during reactor operations. The basis and calculated Argon-41 releases expected during reactor operations are discussed in the licensee's Safety Evaluation Report. The calculations are considered to provide conservative values.
The licensee has recently acquired a used gaseous monitoring system (see paragraph 4(f)) which will subsequently be used by the licensee for verifying the calculated Argon-41 releases.
The average Argon-41 releases reported for 1983 and 1984 was 4.29 and 2.46 millicuries, respectively. These valygs represent an average concentration of approximately 6 x 10 microcuries per milliliters (uCi/ml) when averaged over a 12 month period. This value is considerably lower than the MPC of 4.0 E-8 uCi/ml allowed 'by 10 CFR Part 20, Appendix B.
, No violations or deviations were '.dentified.
b).
Particulates A continuous air monitor (CAM) is located along side the reactor pool. The CAM is operated continuously during reactor operations pursuant to Technical Specifications, Section 3.4.
The CAM's alarm
aL/ .f'3 j' 's & ' 6 %,_ A ::]< w.; & ' T m .. ' a.
. , ',' : 1 % E7' ? ' t
- q y
. , . , ,.. p %. , '* , , ll1 +] , s
- 2 i -
T I /.N5 . '_ ' ~ .. ~ .
- 1setapoints are verified ' prior to each day's run and the instrument ' ' =is.calibratediinfaccordance with established procedures at R
frequencies.that meet or'exce'ed that prescribed'in T.S., Section <' ~
-. . y 4.4 ij
- ~ y .Arev[ew'oftheCAMs(operating'recordsfortheperiod1983through i P 0ctober.1985 was conducted. The review revealed that particulate , airborne concentrations were essentially.non-detectable.
. No violations'or-deviations were identified.
' ' c) Water and Soil Sampling, and Direct Radiation Measurements ._ The licensee's environmental monitoring program includes-the.
_ analysis of water and soil samples taken at representative locations ' * <' _ on the University of Arizona Campus. Dose measurements are also performed using.a series of CaSO4:Dy Thermoluminescent dosimeters , .(TLD's) processed by the Radiation Detection Company.
V . l The inspector discussed at the exit interview the need to evaluate- [1 improvements in the direct dose measurement determined from the [ TLD's.
L ~ Data reviewed supported the conclusion in the annual report that t
- reactor operations has not contributed to the radiation exposure
!. outside the reactor facility.
fli No violations or deviations were identified.
- p 6).
Emergency Preparedness The licensee's capabilities for responding to emergencies, as described-in their NRC approved emergency plan of December.1983,-that was developed p pursuant to-10,CFR Part 50.54(r) were examined.
Discussions related to the licensee's emergency preparedncz,a plan were held with the reactor staff, Campus Security Office, and Campus Radiation - Control Office staff. Implementing emergency plan protea 4res, emergency , l.
, . call lists,1 training records, and. memorandum of undcrstanding with ! involved off site agencies were reviewed. The inspector also verified l that the emergency equipment dedicated for emergencies'as specified in ( the emergency plan were readily available for use by the staff.
l
The examination disclosed that the-licensee has implemented the emergency l: plan in accordance with their commitments to the Commission. Methods for ! improving the training provided to the campus security and campus radiation protection staff were brought to the licensee's attention at , the exit' interview.
L . The examination also found that emergency drills for 1984 and 1985 and l emergency plan reviews for 1984 were accomplished in accordance with the ' emergency plan.s A critique of each drill was also conducted and l documented as required by the emergency plan.
t ' i.
S* {
, ,
- '
zy i , .' .
.
i , _
m y y~~ - -; -, . . .
". . [Q y , i ^' s . < - ,r
i: +- Y
, $x)%;,, \\ !? y"i T
- ..
- , . ' k %g . . -K
- - *
" No violations'or'devist;icqs were ide'ntified.
' ' ,, N . .h ,
- '
' 7).
Followup on Previously Identified Open Items
- % ' a at (Closed) Followup Item (50-113/82-01-01). The licensee actions -
-establis,hef for correcting :the' concerns identified ~in paragraph 7 of
'Inspeciton Report' 50-113/82 S1 were examined) The inspector reviewed.
4A > , M-i pucedure' UARR-100 and found! that the procedure want; revised. The- ' - _ revisions appear to, satisfactorily address the concerns identified in the , inspection report. ThiTs matter is closed-(82-01-01).. . - . . . n c),. Followup on Licensee IMent Report of June-19ff4 ' .s ',, - w dJ ' (Qbsed) Licensee Event Repdit (84-08-L1). d Licensee Event Report dated s M Jufte 8,1984 provided an. evaluation of a power scram that occurred on May '
hlg 06 J1983 which was retorted to Region V on December 20, 1983. The report .
' '
M ildentified that the' scram occurred Mt the left' safety channel at a power ' = level of.102 kilowatts.s The situatio'n of athe-time on the Ucram involved ' ,a . the irradiation' of 35 cadium-11 cad susan capsts2es. The cause.of the . %-
- scram was the flux-depressing effect on the cadlum in the capsules.,which caused the power indications to be Ipw.except O.' ten the " gap" is nearest-
^ the power-measuring detector. The report addevi' that it was considered to" ,, k , J ?: .be a reportable event because a subsequent analpais Eidentified that Lthe.
^^' scram level for the right safety channel was less conservative than.the % 110 kilowatts required by the Technica1' Specifications.
It would have ' , , , scramed at 113 kilowatts part of the time,. depending on the. orientation ' y' < ' ,., .of the samples in the irradiation facility.,The Junel8. 1984 report + . identified. that the right safety channel would have actually scramed at 108 kilowatts in' lieu of 113 ki,l<4atts' ,' .
' <-+ . , . . . WN ] The inspector reviewed the licensee's evaluation and corrective actions
- of the potential
- violation and found the actions to be satisfactory. The
t- ?"4 = problem Armd to be thoroughly reviewed by'the reactor staff and' % Reactor Comahth4 The licensee's actions included a restriction'on the- / . . number of irradia't'ih be limited to.10 cadium-lined samples evenly- " ' '
spaced. This wall alsure that both.the right.and:left safety channels
Ii.
wdfi, scram at,an actual power: level'of 110 kilowatts or less.- Procedure > ' revisions <were reviewed by the inspe'ctor. This matter is closed ' (84-08-111) f ' '
- ,<
' ' - , m x ~ I' No violations or'dev'istions were ideutiified.
' ',y.
- ~ [' 9)NFacilityTosr\\y
- - w i2
, , /" i dpp N' ' ~
-
^ ._ g, , ~ s A. Lour of the facility was made. on e verdi occasions during the r , inspection period of. November 5-8..1f65.
.- \\ N z ' Reactor operations involving.
. sample irradiations and trairking (e')gi educacional) of students were - [,' - k.,, ob served _.~ ,J, fj+ , , ,
. ,. . .J' l ' s + .. l Confitutory measurementssiere performed lby the inspector using an NRC l-Region.V Eberline'Model R0-21 ton c'tamber '(ierial number 2691, calibrated ' on October ~15. 1985). Radiation.nessuremento were in agreement with ' l
L recently completed facility surviya.
! s% ' ( 't % ' > r., ' h ' f
r . , \\ it, r- , ' ' i ,
, _ -~ . -. .
- ,p
- 9, - . ,. t x i
- ._
, cThe inspector noted.that licensee's postings and labeling practices were , consistent with 10 CFR Part 20.203.- , , -
- Work practices observed during thel tour appeared to be consistent with
' -recommendtions with:10 CFR Part 20.1(c) for maintaining personnel l . exposures "as low as is. reasonably achievable"'(ALARA). The facility was.
' , ? exceptionally clean.. .a - The. inspector,alsofo$servedthe' licensee'sacaffperformingtheirroutine , monthly surveys and surveys'of the irradiation samples. All samples were , checked for penetrating'and non-penetrating radiation levels.
' -ReactoroperabNons$bservedappearedtobeconsistentwithfacility~ . operation procedures.~; /, Q 3; .vg ('
.g - , ,, .. No violatihins ob deviations were identified.
L
^7
3 ,4 1-L'j , , 10) Information Noticesi-; F'. ' '
. 3* I
.. q(1 ,]i 3 i - An'. examination,was' con'duc,ted.foi the purpose of determining if IE. -
. , Information Noti,ces-(IN's) were routinely evaluated by the licensee's staff for' applicability..'of activities conducted at the University TRIGA .
- reactof.
d @ . " ' ' ' \\l . t,1 , -Theexam'in[tiondd'sc1Aded>thatthelicenseehasestablishedaformal I ~ . program for,the purpose of-assuring-IN's and other regulatory documents are evaluated in a timely manner.- The tesults of each evaluation is well-s ' documented.--The inspector' verified'that IN's forwarded to licensee's . betweenathe~ period of:1982 and October of 1985 were evaluated by the licensee's staff.
~ ' . 'No violations or deviations were identified.
l/ - 11) Annual Reports- . The inspector. verified the -data provided in the licensee's 1982,1983, .and 1984 annual reports that were submitted to the Region V office pursuant to Technical Specifications, Section 6.7(e).. < _.
- .No violations or deviations were identified.
-12) ' Exit Interview The, inspector met with the licensee's representatiives (denoted in ' paragraph 1) at the conclusion of the inspection on November 8, 1985.
' The inspector summarized the scope and findings of the inspection. The , .. , inspector. informed the licensee that no violations or deviations were identified, , i.<. f & L
I
. , - -. -.. . - - -. . - -.. - - -.. . - - - - -. - - }}