IR 05000139/1982001

IE Insp Rept 50-139/82-01 on 820608-11.No Noncompliance Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Organization,Logs,Records,Review & Audit,Requalification Training,Procedures,Surveillance, Experiments & Independent Insp & Reactor Operation

ML20054L707
Person / Time
Site:	05000139
Issue date:	06/22/1982
From:	Hornor J, Zwetzig G NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V)
To:
Shared Package
ML20054L698	List: IR 05000139/1982001 ML20054L697
References
50-139-82-01, 50-139-82-1, NUDOCS 8207080386
Download: ML20054L707 (7)

Text

. _ _ _ _,

.

.

i

'

U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMfilSSION REGI0tl V Report flo. 50-139/82-01 Docket No. 50-139 License No. R-73 Safeguards Group Licensee:

University of Washington Seattle, Washington 98195 Facility Name: University of Washington Nuclear Reactor (Argonaut)

Inspection at: University of Washington, Seattle, Washington 98195'

Inspection co ted: June 8-11, 1982

/MMBv b ~Z 2 ~SZ.

'

Inspectors:

,

. W.~ Horn 6r, Redctor Inspector Date Signed Q 2 2, / 4 ( L h,(

Approved c :

G.p/.Zw(tjzig,C)h'ef(OperationsProjectBranch Reactor Projects U

Date Signed S#ction 1, Reactor Summary:

Inspection on June 8-11,1982 (Report flo. 50-139/82-01)

Areas Inspected:

Routine, unannounced inspection of organization, logs, and records; review and audit; reoualification training; procedures; surveillance; experiments and independent inspection, including a facility tour and reactor operation. This inspection involved 27 inspector-hours by one NRC inspector.

Results:

No items of-noncompliance or deviations were identified.

8207080386 820623 PDR ADOCK 05000139 G

PDR

-_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

'

e

,,

,

.w.

.

DETAILS 1.

Persons Contacted

~ Professor W. Chalk, Director, Nuclear Engineering Laboratory Mr. H. Miller, Associate Director, Nuclear Engineering Laboratory Mr. D. Fry, Assistant Director, Nuclear Engineering Laboratory

Mr. M. O'Brien, Campus Radiation Safety Officer, University of Washington The inspector also interviewed other licensee technicians, radiation protection technicians, reactor operator trainees and University police.

2.

Organization Records and Logs The University of Washington's (U of W) Nuclear Engineering Laboratory Organization has remained unchanged since the last inspection except for student operator turnover. Presently, there are two licensed senior reactor operators, one licensed reactor operator, and two student reactor operator trainees.

The inspector, on a sampling basis, examined the following logs and

'

records completed since the previous inspection:

a.

Reactor Operations Log Book (Cal Log Book).

b.

Experiment Review and Approval forms (Recuest for Reactor Operation Forms).

c.

University of Washington Nuclear Reactor (UWNR) Data Sheets, d.

Reactor Pre-Start Checkoff Sheets, e.

Reactor Operating Record Sheets.

f.

Approximately 3 months of the " Log N" reactor power recorder chart.

g.

1981 UWNR Annual Report.

h.

Facility Maintenance Log Book.

Based on this log and record examination and interviews with the operating staff, the inspector verified that the technical specifications (TS) requirements are satisfied with respect to organization, staffing, highlighting of problems, operation within required limits, submission of the Annual Report, and maintenance activities.

The inspector noted that the calibration of the test instrument current source (Keithley Model 261) had not been verified in four years. This is despite the fact that the manufacturer recommends calibration once

-

_-____---______-________-____O

-.

-

.

.

\\

V

!

.

.

x-2-

-

E every two years.

In response to the inspector's observation, the licensee representative committed to check the calibration of the instrument in the new U of W NBS secondary calibration facility

!

(scheduled to be completed by September 1, 1982) and once every two years thereafter. This calibration will be included in the

,

written maintenance procedures and will be verified by the inspector,

,

along with the calibration record, during the next inspection.

No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.

3.

Review and Audit Function The inspector reviewed a draft of the Reactor Facility Advisory Committee minutes of a meeting conducted September 1,1981.

All four members were present, exceeding quorum requirements. The primary purpose of the meeting was to review and advise the staff on upcoming open core maintenance. Areas covered included procedures, safety, ALARA, ar.d radiation monitoring. The new procedures were written by the staff and sent to the committee members for review. Approval, however, was obtained from each of the four members by nhone and entered into the records as a letter of approval signed only by the Associate Director. The inspector recommended and the licensee committed to routing all future approval requests through the nembers, and then returning the approval request with appropriate signatures and comments for file. With this change, questions as to approvals and quorum requirements should not arise.

The committee meetings and reviews were conducted in accordance with TS requirements, including changes, frequency of meetings and reviews.

The inspector examined the annual in-depth review required by the TS. The review was performed by an outside consultant not directly involved in the facility operations as required by the TS. Two of the findings were determined by the inspector to be significant enough to indicate the need for licensee commitments. The first item related to operator requalification training which will be discussed in the

paraaraph 4.

The second item concerned the lack of guidance relating l

to the function and qualification of the " qualified assistant." Because of the potential for radiation exposure, the licensee committed to review and formalize the " qualified assistant" function and training, including

,

the recording of class attendance.

l The committee is scheduled to meet this month (June) for their annual in-depth review of facility operations. The minutes of this and the

'

previous meeting will be forwarded to the inspector by mail.

!

No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.

.

.-y

.-~

c

- - -.

.-

-,,.. - - _ -. _

.

.

.

-3-4.

Requalification Training The inspector examined the requalification training program records and examinations. The examinations were administered within the required interval, the questions were relevant to the operator requalification program and the scores were above the required NRC percentile values.

The inspector determined that the records of operator startups and reactivity changes had only been sumarized through December 1981.

Although there are no TS requirements for a more timely sumary, the Associate Director stated that normally they were summarized monthly and he would comit to having them updated by July 1,1982.

From that point on, the program will be updated in such a manner as to facilitate ready verification of compliance with 10 CFR 55 requirements.

No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.

5.

Procedures The inspector reviewed on a sampling bases the following procedures:

a.

Operating procedures including:

(1) Startup.

(2) Startup from standby.

(3) Startup from scram.

(4) Operations.

(5)

Shutdown.

(6) Reactor emergencies.

(7) Reactor pre-start check sheet.

(8)

Reactor standby check sheet.

(9) Reactor data sheet.

(10) Reactor operating record sheet'

b.

Pneunatic sample transfer operation, c.

Fuel handlin.

.

l

.

-4-d.

Health physics survey.

e.

Emergency procedures including:

(1) Fire.

'

(2) High radiation.

(3) Natural disaster.

f.

Maintenance.

g.

Experiment guidelines and policy.

Except as noted below, the procedures appeared to comply with all applicable requirements including technical adequacy, clarity, provisions for deviations, and review and approval.

The exception relates to the fact that, although TS limits were imposed on pneumatic sample transfer operations in terms of the amount of excess reactivity that could be added due to an ejected sample, the operators did not always measure the sample worth or know what the maximum (TS limit) regulating rod movement would be

'

for a given set of conditions. When this situation was brought to the attention of the licensee, a connitment was made to change the procedure to address this limit and to incorporate this change into

!

the requalification training program.

>

No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.

6.

Surveillance The logs and records examined, as described, in paragraph 2, included all necessary TS surveillance requirements.

From this review, the inspector determined that all surveillance and calibration requirements were met in a timely manner.

From this examination, the inspector also

~

concluded that no limiting conditions for operation (LCO), design criteria, or limiting safety system settings (LSSS) were exceeded during this inspection interval.

No items of noncompliance or deviation were identified.

t i

i

<... - -.

~,

.

. _ - -..

_ _ - - - _ _

. _, -.

. -, _

_ _ - - _

......,, _ - -. _ _ _ _. -,.

-

-.

L

.

.

.

-5-7.

Experiments

<

From the examination of the " Request for Reactor,0peration," the

" Cal Log Book," and interviews with the licensee representatives, the inspector determined that all experiments were 'rev,iewed and approved in writing in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR 50.59 prior to imolementation. The complexity of the experiment determined the level of review (i.e., routine experiments approved by Assistant Director only, nonroutine experiments by committee, etc.).

All experiments required procedures and were either performed using standard operating procedures (i.e., pnuematic sample transfer procedure)

or specific procedures were written and approved.

No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.

8.

Independent Inspection During the interval covered by this inspection, the reactor was ;hutdown for several months to allow radioactive decay prior to replacenent of fuel box gaskets. This replacement operation required defueling the reactor and partial core dissassembly. This project was reviewed, approved, and documented as mentioned in previous paragraphs.

A steo-by-step history was maintained through refueling and approach to criticality.

At the comnletion of the task, the biological shield was replaced and a shield survey was taken by health physics technicians (HP) at full power.

The inspector interviewed the HP technicians involved in this survey and based on these interviews, it appeared they did not understand its significance.

For example, they did not search for or record the highest radiation levels measured leaking from various areas of the shield and the neutron survey meter used had never been checked for gamma discrimina-tion.

In addition, the results of the survey appeared not to have been reviewed by all personnel who are allowed unescorted entry into the

'

reactor room during operation.

The inspector expressed concern regarding the potential for shield radiation leakage (both ganna and neutron) from Argonaut reactors.

When this concern was brought to the attention of the facility Director and the Campus Radiation Safety Officer, they committed to routinely check the neutron meter for ganea rejection, to perform a detailed shield

,

'

survey, and to bring this survey to the attention of all unescorted personnel who utilize the reactor room during operation. They also committed to provide a copy of this survey to the inspector.

,

I

.

._.

_

_

.

.

'

-6-The inspector also determined that when radiation protection technicians are requested to perform surveys at the reactor facility, they are apparently not informed concerning the nature of the experiment or the reason for the survey. The management was unaware of this situation and agreed to correct it inriediately. Although the. licensee stated that instructions were provided to workers (including maintenance, police and fire personnel) as required by 10 CFR 19.12, there was no documentation to confirm such instruction had been given.

In response to the inspector's observations concerning this matter, the licensee committed to review this problem and develop some type of attendance record indicating that this instruction had been provided.

The inspector examined the fire protection system, the security system, and the radiation response system both on and off site. The personnel interviewed were knowledgable in all types of emergency response for all shifts and all the phone lists were current.

The inspector followed up on a previous report from the licensee concerning a loss of core reactivity at the time of refueling. The inspector and staff concluded that the loss occurred as a result of minute differences in fuel bundle replacement location. The inspector additionally verified with the licensee that spacers had been inserted into the fuel boxes to prevent any future inadvertent fuel movement and thereby prevent inadvertent reactivity changes.

A review of the empty core, temperature-for the past year showed a maximum corrected reactivity variationgg/K, a factor of about 10 below that necessary reactivity variation of 0.07%

for prompt criticality and a good indication of fuel position stability.

While observing reactor operation, the inspector also witnessed the timed dropping of shim rod 3 from 100 percent withdrawn.

Earlier this year the licensee observed a drop time of greater than 1 second on the initial drop of shim rod 3 after a month long shutdown over Christmas.

This was greater than the 1 second allowed by the TS.

Subsequent drops

.

brought the drop time within required limits and it has remained within l

the limit as verified by the inspector. The performance of this rod will continue to be closely monitored by the operators during all future prestart checks.

No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.

9.

Exit Meeting

,

l The inspector met with the reactor facility staff and the radiation

'

,

l safety officer listed in paragraph one at the conclusion of the inspection

!

on June 11, 1982, for the purpose of discussing the scope and findings (

of the inspection.

During this meeting the licensee made the commitments discussed in paragraphs 2, 3, 4, 5, and 8.

'

l

!

.

.

_-

-- -

_. -. _

.

,

.-

_