IR 05000113/1997001
| ML20141A163 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000113 |
| Issue date: | 06/11/1997 |
| From: | NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20141A156 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-113-97-01, 50-113-97-1, NUDOCS 9706200124 | |
| Download: ML20141A163 (12) | |
Text
- _ ~ - _ - - _
G
.
-
l l University of Arizona -2-i l
,
cc w/ enclosure:
l University .of Arizona ATTN: Dr. Earnest Smerdon Dean of College and Engineering
, Civil Engineering 100 l Tucson, Arizona 85721 University of Arizona Department of Nuclear Energy l and Engineering i ATTN: Dr. W. Morris Farr
!
Interim Department Chairman i Bldg. 20, Rm 200 l
,
Tucson, Arizona 85721 l l l
\
l l University of Anzona 1 Department of Nuclear Energy l and Engineering ATTN: Dr. John Williams :
l Reactor Director j Bldg. 20, Rm 200 i Tucson, Arizona 85721 l l
University of Arizona l
Department of Nuclear Energy and Engineering ;
l ATTN: Harry J. Doane
'
Reactor Supervisor Bldg. 20, Rm 200 Tucson, Arizona 85721 i
l University of Arizona ATTN: Daniel Silvain Radiation Safety Officer 1640 North Vine Tucson, Arizona 85721 Test, Research and Training Reactor Newsletter 202 Nuclear Sciences Center University of Florida Gainesville, FL 32611 Arizona Radiation Control Program Director 9706200124 970611 PDR ADOCK 05000113 l 0 PDR _
.
.
.
.
ENCLOSURE U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION IV
Docket No.: 50-113 License No.: . R-52 Report No.: 50-113/97-01 Licensee: University of Arizona Facility: . Nuclear Reactor Laboratory Location: Tucson, Arizona Dates: May 19-22,1997 Inspector: - L. T. Ricketson, P.E., Senior Radiation Specialist Plant Support Branch Approved By: Blaine Murray, Chief, Plant Support Branch Division of Reactor Safety ATTACHMENT: Supplemental Information
!
!
!
!
L
!
. .. . . . . .. - , _ . . - - -
.
l I
. i I
2-EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Nuclear Reactor Laboratory NRC Inspection Report 50-113/97-01 Summary of Site Status This routine, announced inspection reviewed reactor operations and maintenance, reactor operator requal;fication, reactor committee activities, reactor and facility modifications, radiation protection activities, emeroa,cy plan activities, and physical security plan implementatio Operations
- The reactor was operated safely and in accordance with technical specification requirements (Section 01).
- The reactor requalificction program was conducted appropriately (Section 05).
- The reactor committee provided good oversight of reactor operations and support activities (Section 07).
- A noncited violation was identified by the licensee involving the operation of the reactor by a reactor operator who was not under the supervision of a senior reactor operator (Section 08).
Enaineerina a Maintenance and modifications to the reactor and facilities were performed in accordance with regulatory (*quirements (Section E1).
Plant Succort
- The radiation protection, emergency preparedness, and physical security programs were implemented properly (Sections R1, P:, and S1).
- Documeritation of lessons-learned from emergency drills could be improved (Section P1).
- A noncited violation was identified by the licensee involving the failure to notify radiation workers of their annual radiation exposure (Section R8).
- The licensee demonstratet good ability to identify and correct violations (Sections 01 and R1).
- - . _____ _ _ - - _ _ _
.
-3-Renort Details I. Operations 01 Conduct of Operatione Inspection Scone (40750)
The inspector interviewed the reactor supervisor, observed a reactor startup, and reviewed the following:
Surveillance records
Operations logs
Annual reports (July 1994 - June 1995; July 1995 - June 1996)
Experiment approval records Observations and Findinas According to information in the annual reports and interviews with the reactor supervisor, no emergency shutdowns and only two inadvertent reactor scrams i
occurred from July 1,1994, to May 21,1997. The inadvertent reactor scrams were attributed to faulty replacement bulbs in the regulating rod magnet circuit. No problems were observed by the inspector during reactor startu The inspector determined from selected reviews of operations logs that the operating limits of the Technical Specification, Section 3, were not exceeded and the reactor was maintained appropriately. Surveillances required by Technical Specification, Section 4, were performed as required. An excellent tracking system was used to ensure that survelilances were performed at the required frequencie New or modified experiments were reviewed and approved by the reactor committee in accordance with Technical Specification 6.2 and 10 CFR 50.59 to ensure compliance with limiting conditions for operations required by Technical Specification 3.7 and to ensure there were no unreviewed safety questions. No additional experiments had been proposed or reviewed since those reported in the annual report for the period July 1,1995, through June 30,199 Conclusions The reactor was operated safely and in accordance with technical specification requirements.
l
. -
- ;
-
,
t
'
i
.
.
-4-03 Operations Procedures and Documentation The inspector reviewed selected operating procedures and confirmed that procedures required by Technical Specification 6.3.a were established and >
maintained. The procedures provided appropriate guidanc P 05 Operator Training and Qualification , Insoection Scope (40750)
The inspector reviewed the following records:
- Lecture attendance '
- Operator evaluations
- Console manipulations
- Medical examinations i Observations and Findinas The licensee had three senior reactor operators and two operators. All operator licenses were current. The first operator license to expire will do so on August 17,199 CFR 50.54(i 1) requires that the licensee nave, in effect, an operator requalification program which must, as a minimum, meet the requirements of 10 CFR 55.59(c). The inspector reviewed the licensee's operator requalification program and concluded that it met the requirements of 10 CFR 55.59(c).
10 CFR 55.59(a)(1) requires that each licensee (operator) successfully complete a requalification program developed by the facility licensee that has been approved by the Commission.10 CFR 55.59(c)(2) requires that the requalification program include preplanned lectures on a regular and continuing basis. According to lecture attendance records, some individuals did not attend.alllectures that were a part of the requalification program. However, Section '2.4 of the licensee's operator requalification provided for this contingency by allowing the operaton to pursue a -
program, approved by the reactor supervisor, of study, reading, or exercise before taking an examination. Based on an interview with the reactor supervisor and a review of examination scores, the inspector concluded that the individuals missing the lectures complied with instructions of the operator requalification progra Section 1.4 of the operator requalification program requires that each reactor operator and senior reactor operator pass an annual operating test that includes a !
sample of items specified in 10 CFR 55.45(a), (1) throu0h (6) and l9) through (13).
f Section 3.1 of the operator requalification program requires that each licensed reactor operator and senior reactor operator perform at least five reactivity manipulations in any combination of reactor startups, shutdowns, or significant
- - . - - - _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ . _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _
.. _ _ -----
.
P 5-reactivity changes, and five preliminary checklists during each year of the biennial requalification program. Each licensed reactor operator and senior reactor operator is required to perform licensed functions for a minimum of 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> per calendar quarter. The inspector confirmed through a review of evaluation records and operational logs that all operators and senior operators complied with these requirements of the operator requalification progra Section 1.5 of the reactor operator requalification program requires that each licensed reactor operator and senior reactor operator pass a biennial, comprehensive written examination. The inspector confirmed through a review of examinations that each reactor operator and senior reactor operator met this requiremen CFR 55.21 requires that a licensee (operator) have a physical examination every 2 years. Through a records review, the inspector determined that all but one operator had physical examinations within 2-year intervals. One individual exceeded the 2-year requirement by approximately 2 weeks. A review of operational logs confirmed that the individual did not operate the reactor during the 2 weeks in question. The inspector determined that this portion of the reactor operator requalification program was conducted appropriatel Conclusions The reactor requalification program was conducted appropriatel Operations Organization and Administration The inspector interviewed the reactor director and reactor supervisor. An organization chart was reviewed. The organization met technical specification requirement O7 Quality Assurance in Operations Inspection Scone (40750)
The inspector reviewed reactor safety board meeting minutes and audits performed since the previous NRC inspection, Observations and Findinas Oversight was provided by the reactor committee. The inspector determined through a records review that the reactor committee established a charter and conducted meetings in accordance with Technical Specification 6.2. The reactor committee conducted ongoing reviews of reactor operations by assigning cornmittee members on a rotating basis to review reactor logs and records. The reactor
-
.
t
.
I 6-committee conducted reviews of the emergency preparedness and the physical security plans on a biennial basis, as required Technical Specification 6.2.b 8 and Part II.B.4(c) of the physical security plan, respectively. Checklists used by the committee members to rev;ew the reactor program were reviewed by the inspector and found to provide suitable guidanc Conclusions The reactor committee provided good oversight of reactor operations and support .
)
activitie Miscellaneous Operations issues The licensee identified, by telephone on September 19,1996, and by letter dated October 16,1996, that the reactor was started and operated at a power of 1 Watt for approximately 6 minutes by a licensed reactor operator without supervision of a senior reactor operator. This was in violation of Technical Specification 6.1(b).
As immediate corrective action, the reactor operator was relieved of duty and counselled. As part of the corrective action to prevent recurrence of the item, the operator was required to present an operator requalification lecture that reviewed '
statements in all the facility procedures, technical specifications, and the emergency plan that indicate who may authorize actions. Subsequer. a document summarizing the details of the lecture was placed in the reactor control room for future reference. Additionally, Procedure UARR 163 was revised to specifically state the need for a senior reacto operator to be present under circumstances similar to this event. There have been no similar occurrence The violation was licensee identified, nonrepetitive, correc?ed within a reasenable time, and nonwillfull. Accordingly, the violation is being treated as a noncited
' violation consistent with Section Vll.B.1 of the NRC Enforcement Policy (50-113/9701-01).
Ill. Enaineerina E1 Conduct of Engineering insoection Scoce (40750)
Tne inspector interviewed the reactor supervisor and reviewed the annual reports and operational logs.
-
. .. - -. - . . _ . . -- . - - -
,
-
-
.
l-7-l
,
l Observations and Findinos l
' No major maintenance has been performed on the reactor since the previous inspection. The most significant maintenance involved the replacement and
calibration of the detector in the continuous air monitor. Modifications were reviewed i,1 accordance with 10 CFR 50.59 and reported in the annual reports. No ;
unreviewed safety questions were identifie l Conclusions !
Maintenance and modifications to the reactor and facilities were performed in accordance with regulatory requirement (
IV. Plant Support R1 Radiological Protection and Chemistry Controls
! Insoection Scoce (40750J The inspector interviewed the university medical and reactor health physicist and reviewed records of the following:
- 1995 and 1996 personnel exposure I
Instrument calibrations l * Selected radiation and contamination surveys
! * Annual reports l Observations and Findinas Personnel exposures were within regulatory limits. Exposures were minimu Personnel and extremity monitoring devices were provided and processed by a vendo During tours of the facility, the inspector confirmed that entrances and areas were
!
posted properly, f Calibration of portable radiation detection instrumentation was performed by l members of the university health physics staff, under the agreement state license.
l A review of calibration records confirmed that portable radiation detection j instrumentation was calibrated at the required frequency.
,
l
, - ... , .- ,. , -l
~ - ~~
\ /
'
.
-8-l I
l
\
l d documented as Area radiation and contamination surveys were performed anp performed m required. Members of the university health physics grouduring were used to reactor operation surveys of contamination levels d area.and Usingperiodic the surveysdoc monitor radiation doses on the perimeter ofl in the restricte unrestricted cupancy areas occupancy f actors assumed by the licensee, radiation leve sh did not exceed regulatory limits. The inspector i ector concluded as a result that t e oc f actors were conservative. No problems were identified by the nsp of the review of area survey These sources ili Two plutonium-beryllium sources were stored nt state licens in theThe reactor f ac t were possessed in accordance with the university's agreemeh intervals by univ sources were tested appropriately for leakage at 6-mont health physics personne July 1,199 i d the No liquid or solid waste had beenprogram t l monitoring generated by t university health physics group conducted an environmen l samples. The adosimeters on vario that included the placement of thermoluminescent i gram and buildings and the periodic radiological analysis o identified no problem l d reactor health According to the reactor supervisor and the university medica undioacti physicist, the licensee had made no shipments of ra previous inspection, _ Conclusions The radiation protection program was properly implemente Staff Training and Qualification R5 d confirmed that The inspector reviewed selected personnel training t tion practicesrecords in an workers were provided proper instructions in radiation pro ec accordance with 10 CFR 19.1 ii Quality Assurance in Radiological Protection and Chemistry Activ t ;
R7 tivities were In order to comply with 10 CFR 20.1101(c), l The results radiation were protection ac reviewed annually by university health physics i dpersonne the results .of the 1994 i ws of the radiation reported to the reactor committe The inspector re finalized; however, protection program at the reactor d laboratory and c university health physics personnel indicated that no a verse
.._. . _
.
9 university identifie health physics personnel indicated that no adverse findings were R8 Miscellaneous Radiological Protection and Chemistry issues in a letter dated November 27,1996, the licensee identified a f il a ure to advise Immediate corrective actions included .
notifying the ind r radiation
.
doses. Corrective action to prevent recurrence included e of new the purchas licensee identified, nonrepetitive, corrected was within a rea nonwillfu Accordingly, the violation is being treated as a noncited violation consist
,
Section Vll.8.1 of the NRC Enfoicement Policy (50-113/9701-02) ent with
.
P1 Conduct of Emergency Preparedness Activities Inspection Scone (407501 The inspector interviewed the reactor supervisor and reviewed:
Emergency drill critiques
Emergency plan training records
- Letters of agreement with offsite support agencies Emergency kit contents Observations and Findinos Letters of agreement with offsite organizations were current department personnel had attended orientation . Police and fire to familiarize themsel ves with the reactor site, but there was no specific, required frequency for
. An the orientation response responsibilities was conducted as require ency annual re Drills were conducted annually, as required. Section ncy plan 10.3 of the emerge requires that observer and participant comments concerning areas needin improvement shall be evaluated and consideration given to pos ibl plan and procedures. Records of critiques forsthe e changes in the 1995 and 1996 drills d comments from participating personnel, but they did not clearly state the ocumented conducting the drills. Licensee personnel -
y stated that committee meetings. The inspector stated that it was not clear from a review of reactor committee comments meeting minutes and drill critiques that the was performe evaluation cf
,
inspector's comment and stated that the conclusions and resultsThe r of evaluation would be more clear!y reflected in the reactor committee .
meeting minutes
1-
.
.
.
%
.
l-10-l c. Conclusions The requirements of the emergency plan were implemented as require Documentation of lessons-learned could be improve S1 Conduct of Security and Safeguards Activities a. insoection Scooe (81431)
l The inspector observed the licensee conduct tests of the security system and j reviewed the following records: 1
- Security system tests documentation
- Security key issue b. Observations and Findinas Licensee representatives tested the security system as required and, during observations by the inspector, the security system worked as designed. The ,
licensee accounted for all security keys. Police surveillance was maintained, as required by the physical security pla .i c. Conclusions The physical security plan was implemented as required and no problems were identifie S8 Miscellaneous Security and Safeguards issues
[Qinsed) Insoection Followuo item 50-113/9404-01: Student hiring practice During the previous inspection, the inspector identified a potential vulnerability related to the key shop. Student helpers were utilized in the key shop and the licensee agreed to consider special selection criteria (such as previous work experience on campus) and limited task assignments to preclude access to sensitive information related to the Nuclear Reactor Laborator The licensee evaluated this matter and determined that special selection criteria and limited tasks assignments were not a viable option in this situation. There is no regulatory basis to warrant further licensee actio .
.
> .
1
-11-V. Manaaement Meetinas X1 Exit Meeting Summary The inspector presented the results of the inspection to members of licensee management at the conclusion of the inspection on May 22,1997. The licensee acknowledged the findings presented. No proprietary information was identifie >
,
. .
- . . - . .- .- . . .- - . - - . _ - .- - -.- .
'
,
,
s
.
ATTACHMENT l SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION PARTIAL LIST OF PERSONS CONTACTED Licensee I M. Cusanovich, Vice President for Research and Graduate Studies H. Doane, Reactor Supervisor M. Gavelek, Reactor Operator P. Secker, Jr. Reactor Committee Chairman
- D. Silvain, Medical and Reactor Health Physicist J. Williams, Director, Nuclear Reactor Laboratory l
INSPECTION PROCEDURES USED l
40750 Class 11 Non-Power Reactors 81431 Fixed Site Physical Protection of Special Nuclear Material of Low Strategic Significance l
ITEMS OPENED, CLOSED, AND DISCUSSED Opened 50-113/9701-01 NCV Operation of the reactor by a reactor operator who was not under the supervision of a senior reactor operator
,
(Section 08)
'
50-113/9701-02 NCV Failure to notify radiation workers of their annual radiation exposure (Section R8)
Closed l 50-113/9401-01 IFl Student hiring practices l 50-113/9701-01 NCV Operation of the reactor by a reactor operator who was not
'
under the supervision of a senior reactor operator
! (Section 08)
50-113/9701-02 NCV Failure to notify radiation workers of their annual radiation j exposure.(Section R8)
!
!
.