IR 05000116/1980002
| ML19339A038 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | University of Iowa |
| Issue date: | 10/16/1980 |
| From: | Boone J, Boyd D, Ridgway K NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19339A035 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-116-80-02, 50-116-80-2, NUDOCS 8010310585 | |
| Download: ML19339A038 (5) | |
Text
_.. _
_
___ -
_ - - - _
__ -
.
.
O U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
REGION III
Report No. 50-116/80-02 Docket No. 50-116 License No. R-59 Licensee:
Iowa State University Ames, IA 50010 Facility Name:
Iowa State University UTR-10 Reactor Inspection At: Ames, IA Inspection Conducted: September 22-24, 1980
/,/ /h (/
Inspectors:
K. R. Ridgway
.m
,
F-ji a
/0/4/5:
e@lhg J. M. Boone i
Approved By:
D, C. Boyd, Chief
///Yr[2ttm M
'
Projects Section 4 ggg 5 Inspection Summarv
.
Inspection on September 22-24, 1980 (Report No. 50-116/80-02)
Areas Inspected: Routine, unannounced inspection of records, logs and organization, review and audit functions, requalification training, pro-cedures, surveillance and maintenance, experiments, refueling activities and independent inspection efforts were conducted. Reactor startup, routine operation and routine surveillance were observed. The inspection involved a total of 32 inspector-hours onsite by two NRC inspectors includ-ing 0 inspector-hours onsite during off-shifts.
Results: No items of noncompliance were found in the areas inspected.
.
801081g
.
.
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted
- G. Burnet, Head, Department of Nuclear Engineering
- R. A. Hendrickson, Reactor Supervisor
- E. A. Plettner, Reactor Technician A. M. Metwally, Reactor Operator
- Denotes those present at the management inte rview.
2.
Background On January 17, 1977, the licensee submitted a new set of Technical Specifications to NRR for review. On September 5, 1979, the licensee submitted an application for renewal of their operating license which expired in October 1979. Since the proposed TS and license renewal have not yet been approved, the licensee is still committed to the requirements of their previously approved Hazard Report and license.
NRR Operator Licensing Branch personnel visited the facility on September 25-26, 1980, following this inspection, to examine one SR0 and two R0 license applicants.
3.
Organization, Logs and Records The facility organization was reviewed and verified to be consistent with the Technical Specifications and/or Hazards Summary Report.
The minimum staffing requirements were verified to be present during reactor operations, and fuel handling or refueling operations.
The reactor logs and records were reviewed to verify that:
a.
Required entries were made.
b.
Significant problems or incidents were documented.
'
c.
Facility was being maintained properly.
d.
Records were available for inspection.
During the review of records, it was determined that complete records of the proposed annual rod worth measurements were not available because some of the students who had made these measurements retained the documentation as personal records. The licensee stated that records of these measurements will be retained in the future.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
4.
Review and Audit The licensee's review and audit program records were examined by the inspector to verify that:
-2-
_
.
.
l a.
Reviews of facility changes, operating and maintenance pro-l cedures, design changes, and unreviewed experiments had been conducted by a safety review committee as required by Technical Specifications or Hazards Summary Report.
b.
That the review and audit committee was composed of qualified members and that quorum requirements for meetings and audits were met, Required safety audits had been conducted in accordance with c.
Technical Specification requirements and that any identified problems were resolved.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
5.
Requalification Training The inspector reviewed procedures, logs and training records; and interviewed personnel to verify that the requalification training program was being carried out in conformance with the facility's approved p.in and NRC regulations.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
6.
Procedures The inspector reviewed the licensee's procedures to determine if the proct 'ures were issued, reviewed, changed, or updated and approved in accordance with Technical Specifications and HSR requirements. This review also verified:
That procedure content was adequate to safely operate, refuel a.
and maintain the facility.
b.
That responsibilities were clearly defined.
c.
That required checklists and forms were used.
During the inspection, pre-operational checks, startup and operation of the reactor were observed.
The inspector determined that the required procedures were available and the contents of the procedures were adequate.
It was noted, however, that procedures for determining control element reactivity worth and thermal power calibration had not yet been established as required in the proposed Technical Specifications. The inspector was assured that these procedures were being considered.
No items of nonccmpliance or deviations were identified.
l-3-l
.
+N!?
M$ 'wS))
ll fa,
,
sy 4 / V'
lg'
,
,NN'\\7/,/- \\*/
V
,$ p;>
'
pg, aly w 4 << g l %+
\\
IMAGE EVALUATION NNNN l
TEST TARGET (MT-3)
i
,
l.0 ll:2 a 022 i32 Ia;!I2.2
,
'
=
- g l-l g en g24 s
1.8 1.25 1.4 1.6
6"
>
MICROCOPY RESOLUTION TEST CHART i
m# 4%,
<>+
<$ 4s/k
+ n, i
~
i*;&r;g e
m.
zw.
-
S Q,,,Asf..
""
'
,
<rgt
'~
.
.
A 4o o
- x s
Vfl/,9f
'$'
' <
'
,, L
?g s
,
'f>/
f//,,/+g/,,,
':;"
- Q/,l*,
,
l gy y
,. eEE
<e 1,e~
TEST TARGET (MT-3)
!
l.0 E m A14
,I Of EM
'
I.l jf" E!M i
M l.25 I l.4 1.6 I
-
6"
>
MICROCOPY RESOLUTION TEST CH ART
.
m& %+,,
< 3 A/4 s
+4 y a v,, %' 7//.
_
- n% y
4
"i,lpNg
/_-
<ty
-
_ _ _.
-
o,,,,,
-
-
.
.
7.
Surveillance The inspector reviewed procedures, surveillance test schedules and test records and discussed the surveillance program with responsible personnel to verify:
a.
That when necessary, procedures were available and adequate to perform the tests.
b.
That tests were completed within the required time schedule.
c.
Test records were available.
The following surveillance activities were found to exceed the frequency specified in the proposed Technical Specification.
d.
The proposed TS requires dump valve testing not to exceed seven months. There was no record of the dump valve being tested between November 1978 and December 1979, a period of thirteen months.
The proposed TS required rod drop testing not to exceed seven e.
months. There was no record of rod drop testing between November 1978 and December 1979, a period of thirteen months.
f.
The proposed TS requires primary coolant activity measurements to be made monthly. There was no record of this measurement between January 1980 and March 1980, a period of two months.
The inspector observed routine weekly surveillance activities and found them to be adequate.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
8.
Experiments The ins,uctor verified by reviewing experiments records and other reactor logs that:
'
a.
Experiments were conducted using approved procedures and under approved reactor conditions.
b.
New experiments or changes in experiments were properly reviewed and approved.
c.
The experiments did not involve an unreviewed safety question i.e., 10 CFR 50.59.
'
d.
Experiments involving potential hazards or reactivity change were identified in procedures.
-4-
=
.
Reactivity limits were not or could not have been exceeded
,
e.
during the experiment.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
9.
Refueling The licensee's refueling activities were discussed to:
a.
Ascertain whether the fuel is inspected consistent with the Technical Specifications requirements.
b.
Ascertain whether the fuel is handled safely and in accordance with procedures during refueling and fuel inspection.
c.
Ascertain whether the security of the fuel is maintained consistent with the security plan during fuel movements.
The licensee stated that no refueling activities had been or will be conducted in the near future.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
10.
IE Circular Followup For the Circulars listed below, the inspector verified that the Circular was received by the licensee management, that a review for applicability was performed, and that if the circular was applicable to the facility, appropriate corrective actions were taken or were scheduled to be taken.
a.
IEC 79-08, Attempted Extortion-Low Enriched Uranium.
b.
IEC 80-02, Nuclear Power Plant Staff Work Hours.
c.
IEC 80-14, Radioactive Contamination of Plant Demineralized Water System and Resultant Internal Contamination of Perscanel.
11.
Exit Interview The insepctor met with licensee representatives (denoted in Paragraph 1) at the conclusion of the inspection on September 24, 1980 and sum-marized the scope and findings of the inspection activities. The licensee acknowledged the inspector's remarks as follows:
'
a.
The need to establish certain surveillance procedures and maintain test records in anticipation of TS approval, b.
The need to meet surveillance test frequencies as specified in the proposed TS.
-5-i
._.
_.