IR 05000116/1990001

Insp Rept 50-116/90-01 on 900911-13.No Violations & Deviations Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Actions on Previous Insp Items,Requalification Training,Procedures,Surveillance, Emergency Planning,Radiation Controls & Fuel Handling

ML20059N650
Person / Time
Site:	University of Iowa
Issue date:	10/01/1990
From:	Dunlop A, Jackiw I NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To:
Shared Package
ML20059N638	List: IR 05000116/1990001 ML20059N636
References
50-116-90-01, 50-116-90-1, NUDOCS 9010170080
Download: ML20059N650 (9)

Text

"

_3

.

. .-

'

. .

U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0ttilS!!0N REGION III /

Report No._ 50-116/90-01(DRP)

Docket No 50-116 License No. R-59

.s Licensee: Iowa State University Facility Name: UTR-10 Research Reactor inspection At: Nuclear Engineering Laboratory Ames, Iowa Inspection Conducted: September 11-13, 1990 t

'

Inspector: A. Dunlop, J ML r[ Date

/O- /- 90

Approved By:

fD 1. N. JacRiw, Chief (/ - /4- /

_

-

a I

Reactor Projects Section 3A Date

,

inspection Summary inspection on September 11-13, 1990 (Report No. 50-116/90-01(DRP))  ;

%reas Inspected: Routine, unannounced inspection to review / actions on:' "

followup on previous inspection items (92701); organization, logs,_and. records;1 review and audit functions; requalification training;' procedures;-surveillance;-

experiments; fuel handling activities; emergency planning; radiation controls; 1 radwaste management (40750): transportation activities-(86740): periodic andl j special reports (90713): and licensee event reports (92700). l Results: Of the 14 areac inspected, no violations or deviations were identified.- 1 The licensee has a good overall program. The Reactor Use Committee has positive involvement in the operation of the reactor. __The maintenance procedures _are-sufficiently detailed to provide operators =a good understanding of the surveillance being performed. Development of the fuel element" disassembly-process and procedure needed for shipping irradiated fuel has been handled in a competent manne ~

9010170000 901001 PDR ADOCK 05000116 0 PNV

7 ++ ,

,

-

y

,

l

-

- ' *

L  : ,

r

, . :

. - #

i

'l *

!:

DETAILS--

f f 1., Persons Contacted p

i ' Iowa State University

'

• Dr. B. I. Spinrad, Facility Director #

"~

• Dr. R. A' Hendrickson, Reactor Manage .

• G. Crouch; Radiation Safety-Officer, Environmental. Health-and Safety-(EHS)?

• S. ~ Alten, Reactor Supervisor

~

• T. Zimmerman, Health. Physicist, EHS- 4

• Denotes those attending the exit meeting on September;13,199 . General (40750)

This inspection,- which began on' September 11, 1990, was conducted! to examine the research reactor program at. Iowa State University.- The facility was toured shortly lafterLarrival. The' general housekeeping of!

.

the facility ~was goo The reactor is used primarily for student laboratory classes and researchi activities. The facility intends to convert to. low enriched uranium-(LEU)-'

fuel;in the:near future. The Department of; Energy.(DOE) has had the' fuel plates fabricated; the hardware for the' assemblies is yet to be complet ',

The licensee is expecting receipt of.the new fuel later this year. The-1_icense and Technical Specification' changes needed-.for.the conversion hav been preliminary approved by the Office of Nuclear Reactor .-Regulations.,

No violations or deviations were identified, g Action on Previous Inspection Items: (92701)- .(Closed) Unresolved Item (116/88001'-01): - Review-cal'ibrationiof5 area" radiation monitors (ARMS). The inspector'siconcerns;related!to the ;

calibration method and that .no evaluation on-- ARMS whoseipre-calibfation?

reading fell outside the the target range. . The : licensee.hasqupdated > ,

Maintenance Procedure, " Radiation Monitor. Calibration,"!whichtchanged- 1 the method from calibrating-ARMsfin' place to. calibrating ARMslin a; -l" calibrating range with an. updated source-exposure rate table.i;In: . '

p addition, the procedure now performs evaluation'of pre-calibration #

J reading as;follows: (1) reading falling outside the 20% range buti within the 30% range repeat procedure within.90 days;:(2) reading

'

l L falling outside the 30% range, remove ARM from service for' corrective; j

? maintenance. The inspector has reviewed the revised procedure and- _

several completed surveillances and has!no further concernsi This;

~

L '

.

L item is close ,

a

,..

!

,

)

i

'

]

_-

' . -

. (Closed) Open Item (116/88001-01)':: Licensee. responsibility for-transfer of radioactive' material to other licenses. To account for material transferred to the-broad ~ scope license, the licensee has implemented a." Transfer / Survey _ Form for UTR-10 Produced Radioactive-Material." This form includes the material irradiated, radionuclides and activities produced.:n'ames of personnel who transferred and:

received the material, and initial and followup radiation-survey The inspector _ reviewed several completed forms and concluded the process is adequate. This item is close No: violations or deviations were: identifie l Organization, Logs, and Records-(40750)-

The facility organization was reviewed and verified to be consisten g with the Technical Specifications and: Safety Analysis Report-(SAR).. 1 !

.The minimum staffing reovirements were verified to be met.during-reactor operation. and fuel handl.ing or refueling operation '

>

The reactor logs and records were reviewed to verify that: Records were available for inspect'.o ,

• Required entries were made, Significant problems or< incidents were documente The facility was being' maintained properl The licensee has recently reorganized the department inicharge of.the reactor facilit The_ Nuclear Engineering Department has<been' incorporated ,

into the Mechanical Engineering Department as the_ Nuclear: Engineering -1 Program. The Facility Director and Reactor Manager continue.to be the same personnel, although'now they. report to the Chair.of the Mechanical Engineering Department._ The reactor has a.new interim Reactor Supervisor.,

The new supervisor is a. graduate: student-in nuclearLengineering and is'a'

Dlicensed senior reactor operator-(SRO). The licenseelhas posted.a-position for a permanent Reactor Supervisor. The Facility Director _will o be. retiring at the end of this' year and a replacement has been" named from 1 the Nuclear Engineering Program. The new director has had extensive j interaction with the reactor as-the Chairman of the Reactor Use Committeee  ;

and,a licensed SR ,I

'

The inspector reviewed selected reactor: operator ~1ogs and " Precritical '

!

Checks:and Tests" forms-and determined there was adequate information-included in the logs and the forms were properly completed; '

No violations or deviations were identified, I i

.i '

.

f

'

-

.

. i w , .. .. .. .

,. .- .. -_a___ '

A

__-

w h

..

, ,.

, . 4

., . .

! Reviews'and Audits (40750)

The licensee's review and audit program records were examined by the-inspector to verify that: ' Reviews of facility changes, operating and maintenance procediares,

.

design changes, and unrev.iewed experiments were performed by a t safety review committee as required by. Technical-Specifications or SA The review committee-and/or subcommittee were composed if qualified members and that quorum. requirements and frequency of meetings.had,

'

been me ' Required safety audits had been conducted in accordance with'

Technical Specification requirements and that identified problems were resolve '

The licensee's Reactor Use Committee.(RUC) performs'the function of ..

reviewing reactor related issues. The RUC= reports items of interest to; the campus Radiation Safety Committee (RSC).- The inspector reviewed:the-meeting minutes for the two committees and determined that they.were:

reviewing and approving experiments.: modifications, 'and procedures.: as :

required. The documentation of the' issues discussed at the meetings was-good. The packages developed for new experiments and modifications were

~

also of good quality. Thecommitteememberswere.knowledgeableof.thef reactor and relatedlissues. The committees also ensuredLthe' university would continue to support reacter operations with the realignment:of: y engineering departments and the elimination of'the undergraduate nuclea i engineering progra The RUC members conduct a yearly audit i of the facility:as required-by'

Technical Specifications. The. licensee developed a checklist of7items t be audited and are divided among the members.-.No problems have been; identified in the previous two audit No violations or deviations were identifie . 'Requalification Training (40750)'

j

.The inspector reviewed procedures,- logs, and; training' records; and- l interviewed personnel to verify that the-requalification training;  !

program was being carried out in conformance with the facility's '

approved plan and NRC regulations. .TheLinspector reviewed..the result a of.the'~ annual requalification examinations, operating tests-to-verify q operator proficiency on the reactor' console,:and:the number of hours ' i on reactor console for each operator'(quarterly basis); iThe inspector concluded the licensee is adequately implementing its program.-

'

j

No violations or deviations were identifie I

>

.l i

- . 1 u- ~

'

l

,

j _,, ,

. < ,

- *

,

.- w

-

.

~ Procedures (40750)

The'inspectorreviewedth'elicensee'sprocedurestodetermineif0 procedures were-issued.: reviewed, changed or updated,:and approved in accordance with Technical Specifications and,SAR requirement ~

This review also verified:

That procedure content was adequate to safely operate,

~ refuel, and maintain the-facilit That responsibilities were' clearly define c.; Tnat required checklists and forms were use The inspector determined that the required procedures were available to-the operators and the contents ofLselected procedures, including-operating,

-

.aintenance,

' and emergency procedures, were-found_ adequat No violations or deviations were identifie . Surveillance (40750)

-The inspector reviewed 3rocedures,,surveillanceLtest schedules, and: test-records.and discussed tie surveillance and preventive maintenance: program

.

u with responsible personnel to verify:  ;; That procedures were available and adequate to perform. tests, That tests were completed within the_requir_ed-t_ime schedul Test records were availabl The licensee's maintenance procedures.for performing Technical?

Specification surveillances were of good-quality., Tests were .

periormed as required.' Two good initiatives.the licensee. maintains are a Preventive Maintenance Log (lists when surveil. lances'are completed and the results) and a Corrective Maintenance Log (lists equipment'

problems, cause, and corrective actions). =The only problem,noted bylthe ,

' inspector was the. switch problem that_. caused.the-event discussed in: j L: paragraph 14 of this report was not included in the . log.The-licensee'

agreed that this problem should have been . include ~

!

,

L No violations or deviations were identifie . : Experiments (40750)

o The inspector verified by reviewing experiment.recor'dsLand:other reactor.- ,

C

logs that:

_

v.

L Experiments were conducted using' approved procedures.and.unde approved reactor condition >

a a

4i

.-

_ '

'

ll

.

> t

-

+ -

1. .

. .

- ~

i l

1 New experiments or changes in experiments'were properly-

,

1'

reviewed and approve ,

l- The experiments did not involve'an unreviewedJsafety ,

question, i.e., 10 CFR 50.5 Experiments. involving potential hazards orjreactivity -

changes were identified in procedures, Reactivity limits were not or could.not have been exceeded during an experimen :

The inspector reviewed the following experiments: l Use of thermocouple holder between fuel p1 tes for-measuring reactor's' [

temperature coefficien In-core neutron noise measurement The experimenters' prepared good quality packages.that:the RUC reviewed and approved prior to use. The documentation' included' analysis ~of..the_'above-mentioned criteri No violations or deviations were. identifie . Fuel Handling (40750)

The facility fuel handling program was reviewed by the inspector. The'

review included'the verification of approved procedures for fuel handling 1 and their.technica1Ladequacy 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 to procedure With the conversion to LEU fuel, the. licensee will be required to unload L the reactor and ship irradiated fuel elements offsite. At this time'there L is no shipping cask available to handle the UTR-10: fuel'due-to its unique

! size. The licensee has developed a procedure to disassemble the. fuel elements.into plates, which in turn can be placed in a basket installedtin a licensed shipping cask. The basket and.the tool needed to transfer th . 1 L plates into the basket are being designed by.the licensee. The licensee; l has already performed the disassembly procedure on a dummy fuel element.

,

and one irradiated element. No problems have been noted 'so' far. - A health physics technician is present during the 3rocedure to ensure. exposure rates are minimized. , The next; step will: 3e testing the tool'for- q transferring the fuel plates into the shipping. cask-baske . No violations or deviations were identifie b

.

=3 i !

6 )

F

.

.

[ .

,

[.;

,

.;

m ,

. .

,

i

'. g , Emergency Planning (40750) j

The inspector reviewed _ records and interviewed personnel to determine that the. approved emergency plan was being carried out by verifying- -

" That procedures were in place and required records wer being kept.- , That required _ drills were conducted and evaluate . That required training had been conducte The licensee has: good emergency procedures and training program.; The -

'- ,

operators are trained yearly as part of the requalification program and~ l other personnel (security and firefighting personnel) are trained'

biennially. The~1icensee performs-a. yearly drill as requiredLand the scenarios developed have been challenging. However, documentation of ,

the drill and its evaluation have declined in the past few years. This ,

documentation should . include a brief, description of the scenario, list- Ei of the participants,. any deficiencies or problems identified,'and s corrective actions take .

No violations or deviations were identifie s q

"

12. Transportation Activities (86740)- 1 The licensee has not~ shipped any irradiated fuel offsiteEin;several i years. Material irradiated in the'reactorLis transferred to the University's !

broad scope-license.(as discussed:in paragraph:3).

'

j s

No violations or deviations were identified.:

13. Radiation Control-(40750) .

The-inspector reviewed the radiation protection activities since theLlast'

inspection. Records were reviewed, personnel were interviewed,fan '

observations were made to verify that radiation controls were?beingi ,

carried out in accordance'with license and'NRC regulations. (The areas covered were -

! Posting and labeling <of. restricted areas and_ radioactive ,

material Control of irradiated. samples'.

L Calibration of radiation detection instruments.

L Required periodic dose rate and contamination. survey j

.

- Exposure records of personnel.

l Posted areas of facilit ;

'

l 7 a

<,

,

d

_ . _ _ _ - _ . - __ -_

. _

$ ..-

.

-- +

.,

c :. ..

' The reactor room and associated areas'within are adequately postdd as - d radiation areas or-containing radioactive material. The University's . ,

, Environmental Health and Safety-(EHS) group perform the health' physics- 1 I service for the reactor-facility. This includes radiation and- .

contamination surveys, maintaining personnel. exposure records,- surveying samples removed from the reactor, and calibratinn of portable survey ,

-

instruments. The radiation surveys.were performed on a. monthly basis  ;

until October 1988 when it was changed to quarterly surveys. _ Radiation  :;

levels around the reactor have remained fairly constant over years of; j operation and as such, there'is no concern with'this change. Speciali

~

-,

'

surveys were conducted by.EHS for the radiography beamport experimen EHS. personnel wanted to determine the maximum power level that could:be w i attained to ensure all-unrestricted areas of the facility remained: '

j below 2 mrem.. This procedure was performed-in a controlled-manner and- '

concluded that the reactor could be run at the maximum power (10 KW)

without exceeding the limi ,

' Monthly film badge service is obtained from R. S. Lan'dauer, Jr. Compan .

Exposure-records were reviewed for 1988 through mid 1990.- Doso rates- l received by reactor and EHS personnel have been~ low,' Extremity film:

badges are periodically used_as require ,

The licensee maintains.a log book for irradiation'of materials, which:

includes date, material irradiated, measured activity, andiexposuro rat ;

A EHS personnel is required whenever mater _ial _is inserted'or removed form'

the reacto o l' No violations or deviations were identified.

l 14. Radwaste Management (00750).  :

The licensee transfers solid radwaste to the-University's-broad scope- .

license for disposal; sery smalliamounts of solid; wastes are; generated, j

'

The only measurable gasecus effluent released.by the licenseesis' argon-4 There is no specific ventilation. system at the facility; releases'are by 1 diffusion throughout the building. .The production and release.of. argon-41, is controlled by the operation pattern of-the reactor. 1The licensee is'

limited to 100 kw-hours a week. Over'the past 31 years the reactor has+

. operated at less than 100 kw-hours per year,'such that releases are far below the Technical. Specification limit .  ;

No violations or deviations were identifie .

1 Review of Periodic and Special Reports (90713)

'

The inspector reviewed the following annual. reports for timeliness of-submittal and adequacy of information submitted:

Annual-Operations Report July 1987~-. June 1988- ,

Annual Operations Report July 1988 - June 1989 ~4 Annual Operations Report July 1989 - June 1990

}

^l

8 lql y ,

- -

m a :. , . . j

-

. o-i G ;.- > .1 l

e No violations or deviations were identifie . QcenseEventReports(LERs)(92700)

Through direct observation,! discussions with licensee personnel, an review of records, the following event report was reviewed to determine  ;

that reportability. requirements were fulfilled, immediate correctiv '

action was-accomplished, and corrective action to-prevent recurrence had ;j been accomplished in accordance with Technical Specification :

LER 116/87001-LL: Malfunction of a-Safet'y Channel Test Switch. On June l 3, 1987, when performing a normal reactor startup,-the reactor operator; noted that~the right. linear percent power, channel.was-not' indicating a power increase on the panel meter. The reactor was immediately shutdown-and an investigatiottinitiate The precritical high power; scram test'of the channel was reperformed. The- g test was performed successfully both prior to the startup (part of<the precritical tests) and after the shutdown.- The test substitutes a test -

signal for the true signal =through the Safety Log switch to the panel

_

meter and safety system logic. The test determined the problem.was that; the Safety Log switch was not passing the true signal through to the panel mete ~ ' ~

t The licensee cleaned the contact's on the Safety Log switchLand'performedia normal startup of the reactor later the same day. The channel performed-

-

as required. The root cause was determined to be a' dirty contact in the

- R switch. To prevent: recurrence of this problem, the-licensee added a-step J to the annual calibration procedure to clean the; Safety Log switch contact ]M

)

The LER was both timely and of sufficient detail to evaluate.the even Actions taken by the licensee in shutting.the reactor dow'n, determinin the problem, and initiating preventive maintenance'were considered' goo No violations or deviations were'identifie' b 17. Exit Interview (30703) '

The inspector 1 ret with licensee representatiYes denoted'in Paragraph 11 d

~ H dur,ing and' at the conclusion of "the ' inspection on September.13,11990. - Then I inspector summarized the scope and results of the inspection and discussed , c the likely content of this inspection report. The licensee ^ acknowledged' "

the information and-did not indicate that any of the information disclosed" ,

during the inspection could be: considered proprietary in natur l H

!

,

'

d 9 <

,

ji

,1

'

J