IR 05000139/1990002
| ML20055C344 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000139 |
| Issue date: | 02/08/1990 |
| From: | Garcia E, Yuhas G NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20055C342 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-139-90-02, 50-139-90-2, NUDOCS 9003020212 | |
| Download: ML20055C344 (4) | |
Text
pg
-
.
,
,
g-n
,
'
'~
y
r.
t
.[
,
LE
_
.
_
t y
.
..
'
/
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY: COMMISSION
.
,
hM
'
REGION V
h-
.
u
,
Report'No.
50-139/90-02
,
$.
Docket No.'
50-139
'
g Ry, y^
,
-License ~No.'R-73-
m
~
Licensee:-
University of Washington
- N Seattle, Washington 98195
Facility Name:
University of Washington Nuclear Reactor (UWNR)
l
,
.
. Inspection at:
Seattle, Washington
,
,
5 Inspection conducted:
January 11, 1990.
i Inspeetor:
M M.
Ie/,'4 /###
E. M. Garcia, Emergency Response Coordinator
.Date Signed.
-Approved By: GR ah _
me G. P. Yu as, Chief Emergency Preparedness and-Date' Signed.
s Radiological-ProtectionBranch
>
iSummary:-
'
.
y j:
Inspection on January 11, 1990 (Report 50-139/90-02)-
'
' Areas-Inspected:'
<
,1 LThis routine inspection-by a regionally based inspector was performed to
~
'
. ascertain the: safe operation of the facility in.long-term shutdown, to examine-
e
' the licensee ^ prepar;ations for-the loading and' the shipment of spent' fuel, and -
sto review corrective actions'in. response to previous enforcement actions'.
The
_' guidance:in Inspection Procedures 30703, 40755, 86740, 92701, and.92702 was
.used.
u Results:
-
"
Inithe areas inspected, no violations or deviations were identified. -The
.
licensee's program appeared capable of accomplishing their safety objectives.
,
t
~{
' 9003020212 900208 h
PDR ADOCK 05000139
'
' % aQ; PDC
,
.
W
.
'
-
,
. M r
q
- 6
.
DETAILS I
'I..
Persons Contacted
'
V a.-
Licensee Personnel
<
.
W. F. Miller, As'sociate Director Nuclear Engineering Laboratory D. Fry, Former Senior Reactor Operator.
R. M. Kleiven, Captain Campus Security Department B.'Pankow,HealthPhysIcist
,v b.
Contractor Personnel T. Tillinghast of General Electric Co. was contacted by telephone
'
.The exit interview was conducted with Mr. Miller at the conclusion of the
,
site visit.
2; MC 40755 Research Reactor in Long-Term Shutdown On August 31, 1989, the licensee submitted a request for a license extension and conversion of the facility from an Argonaut reactor to a subcritical neutron multiplying ' facility and robotics laboratory.
The reactor ceased critical operation on June 30, 1988.
Records indicate.
that on September 27, 1988,-the fuel had been unloaded from the core and
.
that no further reactor operations had occurred.
At the time of the
site visit, the licensee was making final preparations for shipping the
'
fuel to the Westinghouse Idaho Chemical Processing Plant (ICPP).
-
-The licensee organization and staffing is consistent with the requirements of Technical Specification VIII, " Administrative x
Requirements." Based on a licensee request-dated December 20, 1988, operator licenses have been terminated for all operators.
The licensee
,
understands that-a retraining program and approval'from NRC's Operator.
'
Licensing Branch is required if they wish to startup again.
,
The licensee was )erforming radiation surveys of a empty fuel cask in
-
preparation for tie shipment of the fuel.
Independent radiation
.
measurements were performed by the inspector, using an Eberline, Model-R0-2-ionization chamber survey instrument, NRC No. 15844, that was calibrated on January 5,1990, and is due for calibration on April 5, n>
1990.
The licensee measurements were consistent with those made by the inspector.
All fixed and portable radiation survey instruments
'
observed by the inspector were in current calibration.
No violations or deviations were identified. The licensee prograa for long-term shutdown status appears to meet their safety objectives.
3.
MC 86740 - Transportation Activities The licensee program, procedure, and records related to the transportation L
of irradiated fuel were examined for compliance with the requirements of L
10 CFR Part 71 and 49 CFR Parts 171-178.
Portions of a practice run for
,
- i~
v
- ?[
[L
'
.
f
hf
'
(
u
>
s nd;
,
,
'
i
- - loading theLirradiated fuel in a shipping cask was_also observed.
ThI"Oniversity of Washington Nuclear Engineering Laboratories Quality Assurance Plan for Shipping Fuel" (QA Plan) was submitted to the NRC on February 13, 1989, and approved on March 17, 1989.
This QA Plan is effective until March 31, 1990.
The QA Plan ident Uied the individuals and organizations assigned responsibility for the fuel transfer
+
activities.
The reactor operating staff, with assistance from the University's Environmental Health and Safety Office staff had defueled
thereactorand,atthetimeofthesitevisitiwasplanningtoperform
<
,
the transfer of the fuel to the shipping containers.
,
F The practice run of the shipping cask fuel loading was conducted to train
- the individuals involved in this operation and to verify the' applicability
-
of their procedures.
" Procedure for Loading Fuel in GE 200 Cask,"' dated January 4, 1990,ing Laboratory Director and the original version had been was used.
This procedure was reviewed and signed by.the
-
Nuclear Engineer
-
reviewed by the Reactor Advisory Committee.
This review and approval process is consistent with the requirements of the QA Plan.
The
,
January 4, 1990, version of this procedure included improvements in the
areas <of equipment required, acceptance criteria for receiving surveys,
Land seal gasket inspection.
This version also included graphics to
,
assist in the setups for cask exhausting, leak testing, and fuel loading, n
- These areas where improvements had been made, had been identified by.the ins)ector'during a review of the. original procedure and were discussed.-
<~
.t wit 1 the licensee in a telephone conversation.on December 21,'1989.
'
J The licensee is a registered user of the' General Electric-(GE) Model' No.
200 shipping container, certificate of Compliance 5971 (C of.C).
The licensee had copies of the current revision of the C.of C (Rev. 8) and i
drawings'129D4757, Rev. O and 12904759, Rev. O.
Hnwever, the licensee-
,
-did not have current revisions of drawings-129D4756 and 129D4758.
The absence of the current revisions of these~ drawings caused some confusion.
The seal gaskets,-identified as' acceptable in the drawing revisions that the licensee had, were not those gaskets provided by GE with the shipping n
containers.
After telephone conversations between the licensee, the
. inspector, and the vendor, it was clarified that the current drawing.
revisions permitted use of the seal gaskets that GE had provided.
In
,'
-
,
response the vendor immediately sent copies of the proper drawing
'
revisions to the-licensee.
j At the time of the site visit, the licensee had a copy of the GE procedure titled, " Shipping Package Assembly-Disassembly." The licensee had used this GE procedure to prepare their own loading procedure discussed above. On January"26, 1990, the inspector determined that the
<
licensee did not have GE's Cask /Fireshield Maintenance" procedure.
This (
)'
procedure is referenced in the C of C.
The cask supplier promptly sent a copy of this procedure and the licensee used it to modify their own procedure, j
-
No audits of the transportation program had been conducted at the time of
.the inspection.
An audit scheduled to take place in December 1989 had been postponed due to a delay in the receipt of the shipping containers.
No new date for the audit had been scheduled at the time of the site visit.
.
--
.
.
-
^
~
,
,
p; -%
'
k_ n I
w
. c The licensee program provided for advance notifications to the consignee
'
- ~,
and states for the shipments.
At the time'of the site visit, timely notifications for the first shipment had been made.
,
o
. -
i Receipt. records for the empty shipping cask received from GE were
-
examined and appear to verify compliance with the licensee's procedure g
and the requirements for receiving and safe opening of packages.
?
-
No violations or deviations were identified.
Although weaknesses were identified in the licensee's procedures and maintenance of required a
documents, the licensee's program appeared adequate to meet their safety, objectives.
,
-4.
MC 92701 Follow-up Items Information Notice 89-09 (Closed):
The licensee did not have and could
-
,
,
not verify that they had received Information Notice 89-09, " Credit for Control Rods Without Scram Capability in the Calculation of the Shutdown
'
'-
Margin." The records for tracking receipt and evaluation of Information Notices had not been maintained since the onset of their decommissioning process.
The last item in the record is for Information Notice 87-09 and is dated February 12, 1989.
The licensee representative stated that
,
those notices received are subject to at least a brief review for applicability to their condition.
Thesubjectofthisnoticewasnot applicable to the condition of the facility during the inspection.
The licensee did have copies of Information Notices 89-03, 89-25, and 89-35..
This matter is closed.
.
L
,
5.
MC 92702 Follow-up on Corrective Actions for Violations
,
Item 50-139/87-01-02(Closed):
This violation involved failure to make notification and written report of abnormal occurrences.
The violation-specifically relates to failure to report Regulating Rod and Shim Rod #3 drop times in excess of Technical Specification limits.
The inspector verified that the corrective actions committed to in the licensee's timely response, dated September 22, 1987 and the October 6, 1987, f
letterfromWenslawskitoBowenhadbeenImplemented. This matter is considered closed l
Item 50-139/87-01-03 (Closed):
This violation involved the licensee's
failure to provide training, required by the Emergency Plan, to new
.
University Police patrolmen.
The inspector verifled that the required L
training had been administered and effective corrective actions had been implemented to prevent recurrence as stated in the-licensee's timely response, dated-September 22, 1987.
This matter is considered closed.
6.
Exit Interview At the conclusion of the site visit the inspector met with the Associate Director, Nuclear Engineering Laboratory.
The licensee has been informed that no violations were identified.
The inspector concluded that the licensee appeared ready to safely ship their irradiated fuel.