IR 05000116/1986001
| ML20207B285 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | University of Iowa |
| Issue date: | 11/05/1986 |
| From: | Forney W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20207B283 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-116-86-01, 50-116-86-1, NUDOCS 8611110572 | |
| Download: ML20207B285 (7) | |
Text
-
l, :
.
..
,
o.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION s
REGION III
Report No. 50-116/86001(DRP)
License No. R-59 Docket No. 50-116 Licensee:
Iowa State University Ames, IA 50010 Facility Name:
Iowa State University UTR-10 Reactor.
Inspection Conducted: ' October.21-24, 1986 Inspector:
C. H. Brown
g
.
Approved By:
ne, hi ll/f/f4
,
Reactor Projects
'/'
i Inspection Summary Inspection on October 21-24, 1986 (Report No. 50-116/86001(DRP))
Areas Inspected:
Routine..unannot.nced inspection of records, logs, and.'
'
organization; review and audit functions; requalification. training; procedures; surveillance and maintenance; fuel handling activities; fuel shipment; radiation protection; radwaste management control; transportation activities; emergency planning..
Results: No violations were identified in the areas inspected.
t 9611110572 861105 DR ADOCK 0500
.
e-p
"4
,
-
O.
-
.
.
e
,
y s,
,
DETAILS t-
,
W
,
s 1.
Persons Contacted '
f'
...
.
.
.
o
- /'
.
- Dr. B. I. Spinrad, Chairman, Department of Nuclear Engineering
'
- Dr. R. A. Hendrickson, Reactor Manager 7,
- Dr. R.' E. Williams, Reactor Supervisor l5 T. Sankoorikal, Reactor Operator-
>
D. Hamm, Operator Trainee
.
]i~
'
,
!
..
sj-3
,
- Denotes those present 'at thet exit interview.
'
'
'
.
'
2.
Ge.eral This inspection, which began at 8:30 a.m. on October 21, 1986, was conducted-to examine the research reactor program at the Iowa State University. The facility has toured shortly after arrival. The inspector observed reactor startup and operation during the inspection.
The general housekeeping of the, facility remains satisfactory.
'
3.
Organization,LogsandRecords)
'
The facility organization wa's' reviewed and verified to be consistent-
~
~ ith the Technical Specifications and/or Safety. Analysis Report (SAR).
w The minimum staffing requirements kere verified to be present during reactor operations, and fuel. handling or refueling operations.
,
The reactor logs ~ and records were reviswed to verify the following.
~
a.
Records were available'for inspection.
'-
s b.
Required entries were made, c.
Significant problems or incidents were documented.
'
The facility was bein' [ maintained properly.
d.
g No violations or deviations were identified.
4.
Reviews and Audits The licensee's review and audit program records were examined by the inspector to verify the following.
I a.
Reviews of facility changes, operating and maintenance procedures, design changes, and unreviewed experiments had been condu'cted by a safety review committee as required by Technichl Specifications or SAR.
'
l b.
The review committee and/or subcorvnittees were composeo of. qualified members and -that quorum requiremerits and frequency of meetings had
'
been met.
i
f
'
,
.
,
?
.
,
>
i
m
,,
..
.
.,
- '
..
c.
Required safety audits had been conducted in accordance with Technical Specification requirements and that any identified -
problems were resolved.
A revie'w of the Radiation Safety Committee and Reactor Use Committee meeting minutes indicated the committees were meeting all requirements.
'
No violations 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 plan and NRC regulations. Two R0 license and one SR0 license examinations were administered during 1986 by Region III. The three candidates were successful. This provides the facility-with two SR0s and four R0s. One other SR0 at.the facility whose license has expired is planning, at this time, to regain his SR0 license in the near future.
No violations or deviations were identified.
6.-
Procedures The inspector reviewed the licensee's procedures to determine if procedures were issued, reviewed, changed or updated, and approved in accordance with Technical Specifications and SAR requirements. This review also verified the following.
a.
Procedure content was adequate to safely operate, refuel and maintain the facility.
b.
~ Responsibilities were clearly defined.
c.
Required checklists and forms were used.
The inspector determined that the required procedures were available and the contents of the procedures were adequate. The licensee had developed a guideline for fonnat and content of the written procedures.
No violations or deviations were identified.
7.
Surveillance The inspector reviewed procedures, surveillance test schedules, and test records and. discussed the surveillance program with responsible personnel to verify the following,
~
a.
That, when necessary, procedures were available and adequate to perform tests.
,
!
'
s
.
.
,
-
. _.
-.
- - -,
.-
r3
'
y,,
.
..
b.
That tests were completed within the required time schedule.
c.
. Test records were available.
The licens~ee's surveillance program appeared to be satisfactory.
No violations or deviations were identified.
8.
Experiments The inspector verified the following by' reviewing ex~periment records and other reactor logs, 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 requirements regarding experiments were n:et, f
d.
Experiments involving potential hazards or reactivity changes were identified in procedures.
Reactivity limits were not or could not have been exceeded during an e.
- .
experiment.
The inyector reviewed the changes to one experiment that had been approved since the last inspection.
No violations or deviations were identified.
9.
Fuel Handling The facility fuel handling program was reviewed by the inspector.
The review included the verification of approved procedures for fuel handling and their technical adequacy in the areas of radiation protection,. criticality safety, Technical Specification, and security plan requirements. The inspector determined by records review and discussions with personnel that fuel handling operations were carried out in conformance of the licensee's procedures.
No violations or deviations were identified.
,
10. Transportation Activities
.,
'
The inspector reviewed records of radioactive material shipments made
.since the last inspection to determine that Department of Transportation
.(00T) regulations were being followed including:
..
_
_
_
__ -,
-
_ _.. _ _. _ _
_
_,
_
,.
r
.
.
.
,
..
a.
The selection of the proper shipping containers.
b.
The preparation of packages for shipping.
c.
The records of shipments.
The inspector reviewed the shipping records since the last inspection.
The fuel plates in excess of those required for the reactor operation were required to be shipped to a secure facility. The fuel (35 plates)
was shipped on February 14, 1986, and receipt of shipping cask has been acknor;1 edged.
No violations or deviations were identified.
11. Radiation Control The inspector reviewed the ra6iation protection activities since the last inspection. Records were reviewed, personnel were interviewed, and observations were made to verify that radiation controls were being carried out in accordance with license and NRC regulations.
The areas covered were as follows:
a.
Posting and labeling of restricted areas and radioactive materials.
b.
Control of irradiated samples.
c.
Calibration of radiation detection instruments.
d.
Required periodic dose rate and contamination surveys.
e.
Exposure records of personnel.
f.
Posted areas of the facility.
g.
Personnel training.
h.
Pool water activity.
No violations or deviations were identified.
12. Radwaste Management a.
Liquid Wastes No liquid wastes were discharged from the facility during the inspection period. The routine samples taken of reactor coolant (for chemistry control and class work) were turned over to' the environmental group which disposes of waste under the-University's bi-product materials license. The Health Physics personnel stated only a small quantity of reactor liquid waste had been received by the group for disposal during the last two years.
,
___
-
__
. -..- _
._.
_ _ __ ________-______- - _-
__ --
__
.*
y.
.
..
.,
b.
Solid Wastes Normally solid waste is transferred for disposal under the University's bi-product materials license but the minor amount generated during the inspection period has not necessitated a transfer.
c.
Gaseous Wastes The gaseous radwaste discha'rge from the reactor'is du~e to air saturated water cooling the reactor in an essentially open pool.
The average reactor power per operating week was less than 5 kilowatt-hours which results in less than 1% of the allowable
- concentration of' argon-41 determined by the time integration of reactor power.-
No violations or deviations were identified.
13. Emergency Planning.
The inspectors reviewed records and interviewed personnel to determine that the approved emergency plan was being carried out by verifying the following:
_
That procedures were in place and required records were being kept.
a.
b '.
That required drills were conducted and evaluated, c.
That required-training was conducted.
R. E. Williams, the reactor supervisor, was named as the Emergency Plan Coordinator.
No violations or deviations were identified.
14. Review of Periodic and Special Reports The inspector reviewed the following reports for timel.iness of submittal and adequacy of information submitted, a.
Annual Report: July 1,1984 to June 30, 1985 b.
Annual Report: July 1, 1985 to June 30, 1986 The Annual Report "a." showed a total of 109 kilowatt-hours of energy produced and the report "b." showed 40 kilowatt-hours of energy produced.
The energy produced is used to provide data for burn-up calculations, and it is also used to calculate the argon-41 release to the building. The Technical Specification states that reactor operation is limited to 100 kilowatt-hours per week to maintain the argon-41 levels to an average concentration less than 50% of listed.value for a restricted area (Table I, Appendix B of 10 CFR Part 20). The historical weekly energy production average has been about 5 kilowatt-hours.
y_
o s
..
, '.
..
,
l
>
The Annual Reports discuss the unscheduled shutdowns and corrective actions taken (5 scrams during the two report periods).
No major modifications were performed during the reporting period. The reactor was not operated during the last part of 1985 due to an instrument (inlet coolant temperature controller) failure and time lag to obtain a
' replacement. The instrument and indicator had to be replaced with new, functionally equivalent equipment in January 1986. The required reviews and calibrations were performed.
No violations or deviations were identified.
15. Exit Interview The inspector met with the licensee representatives (listed in paragraph 1) at the conclusion of the inspection on October 24, 1986, and summarized the scope and findings of the inspection. The inspector also discussed the likely informational content of the inspection report with regard to documents or processes reviewed by the inspector during the-inspection. The licensee did not identify any documents or processes as proprietary.
7