IR 05000113/1990001
| ML20011E560 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000113 |
| Issue date: | 01/26/1990 |
| From: | Louis Carson, Cillis M, Wenslawski F NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20011E559 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-113-90-01, NUDOCS 9002160088 | |
| Download: ML20011E560 (9) | |
Text
..;
...
.
,
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMISSION
REGION V
Report No.
50-113/90-01
'
' License No.
R-52 Licensee:
University of Arizona College of Engineering Tucson, Arizona 85721 Facility Name:
University of Arizona Research Reactor, TRIGA Mark I Inspection at:
Tucson, Arizona Inspection Conducted:
January 9-11, 1990 l
Inspector:
, A //
/
9' pe M. CT lis, Senio Radiation Specialist Dtte' '5igned
/~M*M
'
l L.
Carson, II, adiat~on Specialist Date Signed
"
Approved by:
/. M.
/I24/O
l F. A. Wenslawski Chief Date Signed L
FacilitiesRadiologicalProtectionSection Summary:
Inspection on January 9-11, 1990 (Report No. 50-113/90-01)
Ayeas Inspected:-
Routine unannounced inspection by regionally based inspectors of reactor operations program, including health physics, emergency preparedness program,
.
radioactive ma".erial transportation activities, follow-up items and a tour of
the facility.
Inspection procedures 30703, 40750, 86740, 90713, 92700, 92701, I
and 92702 were addressed.
Results:
In the areas ins no violations or deviations were identified.
In the areas inspected,pectedthe llcensee's programs appeared to be of good quality a
,
'
'
were being accomplished in a safe and quality manner.
Q2QQ$k h.
C O
.
..
..
.
...
.......
.
_
-. _ _. - _. _ _ _
._
_
.
_
_
_
-
-
.
.
.~
-
-
.
. _ _
--.
~~
}
..'
.
)
.
DETAILS
]
1.
Persons Contacted a.
Licensee
- E.T.Smerdon,AssocIateDean,CollegeofEngineering Dean College of Engineering
- W. P. Cosart,
- G. W. Nelson, Director, Nuclear Reactor
',
- R. L. Seale, Head, Department of Nuclear and Energy Engineering B. Westerman Director, Radiation Control Office
,
D. L. Hetrick. Reactor Committee Chairman
- H. J. Dosne, Reactor Supervisor
!
C. Irwin, Radiation Safety Officer i
- M. C. Young, Assistant Director, Radiation Control Officer
!
B. B. Piner, Chief, Radiation Control Officer l
'
C. E. Harris, Lieutenant, University,of Arizona Police' Department j
b.
NRC
- Bobby H. Faulkenberry, Deputy Regional Administrator l
- Denotes those individuals attending the exit interview held on
-
January 11, 1990.
In addition to those individuals noted above the in
!
helddiscussionswithothermembersofthelIcensee'spectorsmetand s staff.
,
2.
Class II Research and Test Reactor Operations (40750 and 90713)
i i
The licensee's reactor operations program was reviewed for compliance with the requirements of 10 CFR Parts 19, 20, 50, 55; including the Technical Specifications (TS) and licensee procedures. The inspection included a review of reactor operating records, tours of the t
licensee's facility and the review of selected procedures.
I Reactor operations were determined to be consistent with the
'
l information provided in the licensee's 1987 and 1988 annual reports.
'
The facility continues to provide support for teaching programs and l
sample irradiations.
A.
Reactor Operations
.
.
The reactor was used for research projects, educational purposes, and reactor operator training of replacement o)erators.
In
'
particular the reactor was used for graduate tiesis research and
'
undergraduate Nuclear Engineering course ex)eriments, including a)proaches to criticality, control rod cali) rations measuremeats of t1edynamicresponseofthereactortostepandperIodicchangesin reactivity, flux mapping, activation analysis and production of short-lived radioisotopes.
-
.
.
. -
.
_
.
_, -... - -
. -.
--
.
.
.-
-
_ - - - - - -
-
-
-
i
.,'
..
'
The reactor was critical for a total of approximately 218 hours0.00252 days <br />0.0606 hours <br />3.604497e-4 weeks <br />8.2949e-5 months <br />, producing 6031 kw-hours of thermal energy during the period of July 1, 1988 through June 30 1989.
One inadvertent scram, attributed to personnel error, was rep,orted for the ptriod of January 1,ll 1989 through December 31, 1989.
All reactor operations were we documer,ted in accordance with established licensee procedures.
B.
Organization l
The organizational structure for operation and administration of
'
the TRIGA Research Reactor' remains unchanged from what was reported in Region V Inspection Report 50-113/88-01.
The organization was found to be consistent with TS, Section 6.1.
The inspectors noted that the technical qualifications of the licensee's staff assigned the responsibility for operating the reactor, I
implementation of the radiation protection program and for reviewing reactor operations exceeded the recommendations of ANSI 15.4,
,
Standard for Selection and Training of Personnel for Research I
l l
Reactors.
J
.
C.
Operations and Maintenance Records A review of reactor operating logs such as startup and shutdown check lists and maintenance records for the period of March 1988 through December 1989 was conducted. The reactor operating logs, check lists and maintenance logs were adequately filled out and were
,
consistent with facility operating procedures and Technical Specification requirements, f
The inspector concluded that reactor operations met the conditions prescribed in the Technical Specifications Section 2 Safety Limits
'
and Limitina Safety System Settinos and Section 3, Limiting
Conditions for Operation.
Preventative maintenance activities had been factored into the facilities operating procedures. The inspectors concluded that the
licensee was implementing an effective maintenance program.
D.
Procedures The inspection disclosed that the licensee maintains in effect l
reactor operating procedures as described in TSs, section 6.3.
The inspectors reviewed the licensee's standard operating
,
'
procedures.
The inspectors noted that the procedures are routinely reviewed and whenever changes occur that may require revisions.
E, Changes Discussions with the Reactor Supervisor and the review of reactor o>erating records for the period of February 1988 to the time of t11s inspection disclosed that no changes were made to the facility
-. -.
-
. -.
-.
-
__ _
_
_
,. _
___
_._._.___
__
_
<
j
..
,,
]
.-
!
or procedures that would require a safety evaluation pursuant to 10 CFR part 50.59
,
F.
Experiments j
The licensee's experiment program had not changed since the previous
!
inspection.
Experiments performed since then have consisted of i
activation analysis in sup
!
classroom laboratory work port of various research projects and No new experiments of a non-routine nature had been performed since the previous inspection.
G.
Surve111ances
Records for the surveillances prescribed in Technical Specifications i
(TS) Section 4.0 were examined.
All surveillances were performed at the frequencies specified in the the TS with one exception that is
,
,
discussed in paragraph 4. The examination included the verification
'
and review of data associated with surveill:nces involving fuel
element measurements, determination of reactivity worths of each control rod, control rod inspections, rod drop time determinations, functional performance checks of the transient rod, channel checks of the reacter safety system, channel checks of the power level
'
channel,ionofthetemperaturemeasuringchannelandcalIbrationsof channel calibrations of the power level channel i
calibrat the radiation monitoring instrumentation.
The inspectors noted that the licensee performed the surveillances at a greater frequency than what is specified in the TS.
The inspectors concluded that the licensee's surveillance program met or exceeded TS requirecents.
H.
Review and Audit
'
Reactor Operations Committee (ROC) minutes for the period of February 1988 through December 1989 were reviewed.
In addition a i
meeting was held with the ROC Chairman to discuss ROC activities
!
that were conducted since the previous inspection.
l The review and discussions disclosed that members of the ROC were conducting routine audits of the Nuclear Reactor Laboratory (NRL)
activities.
The audits were broad in scope and were designed to assure that NRL activities are performed in accordance with the Technical Specifications.
None of the audit findings appeared to represent a significant safety finding.
Audit findings were effectively corrected in a timely manner The inspector concluded that the licensee's review and audit program met and/or exceeded the requirements prescribed in Section 6.2 of the Technical Specifications.
,
I.
Reactor Operator Requalification Program The licensee's implementation of the NRC approved Reactor Operators requalification program, dated August 29, 1974, was examined.
!
'v1 4i---
.
.
-
.
--
-m -
-
.--
.
.
.
-
-
m
_.
_
__. _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _. _
__
. _ -
_ _
-
i
l
..'
.
.
!
Applicable training lesson plan, quizzes, and annual written
!
examinations that were administered since the previous inspection
were reviewed, j
A violation associated with the implementation of the i
requalification program is documented in Region V Inspection Report
!
50-113/88 01.
Corrective action implemented by the licensee to f
gelow.revent a recurrence of the violation is discussed in paragraph 4.B,
RecordsofeachReactorOperator(RO)andSeniorReactor
!
Operator (SRO) operations are maintained by the Reactor Supervisor.
These records are reviewed by members of the Reactor Operations
!
Committee for compliance with the licensee's approved SR0/R0
requalification program. The inspector concluded that the records
-
that were reviewed in this subject area demonstrated that the SR0/R0 requalification program was consistent with 10 CFR Part 55, the
.
licensee's approved program of August 1974 and revision 1 of the requalification program, which was dated and submitted to NRR on
September 15, 1989 The licensee's performance in this area appeared to be improving and I
was determined to be fully capable of meeting its safety objectives.
'
J.
Radiation Protection Program
'
The licensee's radiation protection program for assuring compliance
with 10 CFR Parts 19 and 20 and the Tec1nical Specifications was
examined.
Records involving personnel dosimetry, contamination surveys, ions radiation measurements and measurement of airborne concentrat
obtained at the reactor facility since the previous inspection were reviewed. In addition the inspectors held discussions with the licensee's radiation protection staff, t
The inspectors noted that posting and labeling practices were consistent with 10 CFR Part 19.11 and 20.203 and radiation
measurements were consistent with the requirements of 10 CFR Part
'
20.201.
Licensee records continue to indicate that radiation levels at the reactor facility are low and that contamination levels and t
airborne concentrations are essentially non-detectable.
^
Personnel exposures of the reactor staff continue to indicate that reactor operations are performed in accordance with good ALARA practices.
Annual exposures of the reactor staff have continued to show exposure levels less than 6% of the 1.25 rem / quarter limit specified in 10 CFR 20.101.
'
Thelicensee'sGeneralEmployeeTrainingprogramforassuring compliance with 10 CFR Parts 19.12," Instructions to Workers, and 19.13. " Notification and Reports to Workers," was examined for the period of January 1988 to January 1990.
The training plans for
'
.
.
_
._
_ _.
._
_
__
_
_
-
-
_
-
.
. - -. -
-
---
-
..
.
students enrolled in Nuclear Engineering classes requiring possible radiation exposure were reviewad.
Also reviewed, were the attendance records of these students.
The inspectors concluded that the licensee's GET program was consistent with 10 CFR parts 19.12.
A review of records maintained by the licensee's radiation control
!
office and the reactor facility disclosed that no radioactive liquids were discharged from the facility during the period of Janua 1988 to December 1989.
Solid radwaste released by the facili durin respect vely. g 1988 and 1989 was 3.5 and 4.0 cubic feet A continuous air monitor (CAM) pursuant to TS Section 4.3 is used to measure concentrations of particulate radioactivity.
The inspector verified that the CAM calibration was accomplished in accordance
,
with TS Section 4.4.
Annual releases of Argon-41 are determined by licensee calculations that are based on an upper bound estimate at reactor power
,
operations of 100 kw-ho~ rs generated. ' Argon-41 releases for the
'
'-
u period July 1987 through June 1989 continue to be less than 0.6% of i
Argon-41 allowable release limits in 10 CFR 20, Appendix B.
,
Portable radiation measurement instruments and pocket ionization
!
chambers used by the reactor facility were observed to be in current calibration.
The licensee's radiation protection program was determined to be of goodqualityandca$epublic.able of protecting the health and safety of th reactor staff and t K.
Emergency Preparedness Program
'
The licensee's capability for respondin to emergencies as specified intheirNRCapprovedEmergencyPlan(E)Part50.54wasexamined.12, 1983 an of December for demonstrating compliance with 10 CF A violation associated with the licensee's implementation of the EP
-
was documented in NRC Inspection Report 50-113/88-01. During this
,
inspection, the inspectors verified that the licensee's corrective
,
actions addressing the previous violation had been satisfactorily
'
implemented (see paragraph 3.B below).
The inspectors reviewed
-
records related to emergency response personnel training and of emergencydrillsthatwereconductedsincethepreviousInspection.
Also, discussions with cognizant licensee representatives were held to determine the licensee s compliance with the EP.
Based on the review of records and the discussions, the inspectors noted that the licensee had made significant improvements in the
-
implementation of the EP.
The inspector also noted that emergency
'
response equipment was being properly maintained. No additional
-
concerns were identified in this area.
,
- - -
_.
.
_
. _.
.
_ _.. _
._
_
_
,
!
..-
l
.
!
L.
Environmental Monitoring Program
The licensee has established an environmental monitorin; program i
which includes the analysis of water and soil samples t1at are i
obtained at various locations around the reactor facility and the
!
University of Arizona campus.
Direct radiation measurements are l
also performed using an array of Thermoluminescent Dosimeters (TLD).
!
.
Records of soil water and TLD measurements were reviewed and were foundtosupporlthelicensee'sconclusionthattherehasbeenno
detectable or abnormal increases of radioactivity in the environment
as a result of reactor operations.
!
M.
Facility Tour
The inspectors toured the licensee's facility.
Posting and labeling.
!
were found to be consistent with 10 CFR Part 19.11 and 20.203 i
requirements.
!
'
All fixed and portable radiation monitoring instruments were in
-
current calibration and the reactor facility cleanliness was
,
excellent,
,
N.
Annual Report i
l The licensee's annual report covering the period of July 1,1988 t
through June 30, Technical Specification 6.7 (e) and summarized p 1989 was reviewed.
The report was submitted
>
accordance with operations, changes te surveillances and i
maintenance activities.sts, experiments, includes a summary of The report also radiation tevels, radioactive effluent releases and the results i
obtained from the licensee's environmental monitoring program. The
information was found to be consistent with the inspectors'
,
observations discussed in this report.
No errors or anomalies were
'
identified.
The licensee seemed to be maintaining their previous level of performance in this area and their programs appeared capable of accomplishing their
-
safetyobjectives.
3.
-Follow-up (92701 and 92702)
'
~
A.-
Licensee Action on Open Items an Information Notices 1:
Item 50-113/88-01-03 (Closed):
This item involved the need for l
verifying that radiation levels adjacent to the water purification l
system, during and after sustained full reactor power operations
,
did not result in radiation levels that were in excess of regula{ory ('
limitsspecifiedin10CFRpart20.202(b)(2),RadiationArea.
An evaluation performed by the licensee after three hours of sustained reactor operations disclosed radiation levels were well below the levelsprescribedin10CFRPart20.202(b). This matter is closed.
,
~
..
. - -.
-
.
.-
....
_..
_
- _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
_
._
.
!
...
!
i information Notice 89-09 (Closed):
The inspector verified that the licensee had received and evaluated Information Notice 89-09 Credit for Control Rods Without Scram Capability in the Calculation of Shutdown Margin.
This matter 15 closed.
B.
Licensee Action on Enforcement Items Item 50-113/88-01-01 (Closed):
This violation involved the
11censee's ra11ure to include all the required sub1ects in the reactor operator / senior reactor operator 1987 examinations.
The
inspectors verified the required training had been administered to t
the operating staff and effective corrective action had been
!
implemented to prevent a recurrence of this item as stated in the
!
licensee's timely response, dated March 29, 1988.
This matter is closed.
,
i Item 50-313/88-01-02 (Closed):
This item involved the licensee
tallure to Tully implement the NRC approved Emergency Plan involving
'
the following items:
,
(1) Failure to include Radiological Control Office (RCO) members in the annual emergency response training program.
- i (2) Failure to distribute copies of the Emergency Plan to the RCO and University Police Department.
(3) Failure to perform semiannual calibration of Emergency Plan
portable health physics instruments.
.
The inspector verified through personal observations throuE the h
reviewofrecordsandbydiscussionsheldwiththelleenseesstaff l
that the corrective actions described in the licensee's timely response of March 29, 1988, had been effectively implemented.
This matter is closed.
l 4.
Follow-up on Written Reports of Nonroutine Events (92700)
The licensee's notification of a missed Technical Specification
'
surveillance which was brought to the attention of the Region V staff by telephone on Aaril 28, 1988 and followed up with a licensee written report, dated 4ay 9, 1988 was examined during the inspection. The
.
notification and subsequent written report disclosed that a reactor operation committee member had-identified that the control rod visual inspection had not been performed at the required two specified in Technical Specification Section 4.2 (c). year intervalThe required control rod inspection was due on January 19, 1989.
i Corrective action taken by the licensee was to perform the required control rod inspection on May 1 1989 and to establish and implement
!
additionalcorrectiveactionthatwillpreventarecurrenceofthe
,
violation.
The licensee's corrective actions described in their written report of May 9,1988 were verified during the inspection.
The
,
inspectors concluded that the corrective action appeared to be
.
. _.
.
.
__-
_
.. '
..
-
.
'
satisfactory.
A violation was not considered in view of the fact that
-
the violation was licensee identified and immediate action was taken to correct the violation.
The inspector concluded that all of the conditions of 10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C, Section V. G. (1) for refraining from issuing a violation were met.
This matter is closed.
5.
Transportation of Radioactive Materials (86740)
"
The licensee's program for assuring com)11ance with De)artment of Transportation, 49 CFR Parts 171 throug1 178, and 10 C:R Parts 20.205, 20,311 61 and 71 requirements as'sociated with the packaging and shipment ofradIoactivematerialswasreviewed.
Discussions with the licensee's staff and the review of records disclosed that transfer and/or shipment of radioactive materials from the reactor facility are made through the licensee's State of Arizona radioactive J
material license.
No concerns were identified in this area.
The licensee seemed to be maintaining their previous level of performance in this area and their program appeared capable of
accomplishingitssafetyobjectives.
i No violations or deviations were identified.
,
6.
Exit Interview i
'
The inspectors met with the individuals denoted in paragraph 1 at the conclusion of the inspection on January 11, 1990.
The scope and findings of the inspection were summarized. The licensee was informed that no violations or deviations were identified.
The inspectors concluded that the facility was being operated in a safe and conservative manner.
l f
l (
.
l
-
l
.
-
_
,
~-\\,-n--