IR 05000156/1981001
| ML19346A271 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | University of Wisconsin |
| Issue date: | 04/30/1981 |
| From: | Boyd D, Janke R, Ridgway K NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19346A270 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-156-81-01, 50-156-81-1, NUDOCS 8106050558 | |
| Download: ML19346A271 (6) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:__ F p.
% L) . U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
REGION III
, Report No. 50-156/81-01 Docket No.-50-156 License No. R-74 Licensee: University of Wisconsin Madison, Wisconsin 53705 . Facility Name: University of Wisconsin Nuclear Reactor-Inspection Conducted: April 6-9, 1981 Inspectors: K ay [[J/)/8/ ///C I i b R.1.C. Janke YZ-f C/ ,,. D. C(.)TC $fe 3 0 d,! Approved By: Boyd, Ch f Projects Section IA Inspection Summary Inspection on April 6-9, 1981 (Report No. 50-156/81-01) Areas Inspected: Routine unannounced inspection of records, logs and organ-ization; review and audit functions; requalification training; procedures; surveillance and maintenance; refueling; experiments; radiation protection _ program; radwaste management program;. security plan; and followup action relative to IE Circulars and Open Inspection Items..This inspection in-volved a total of 60 inspector-hours onsite by two NRC' inspectors including . 0 inspector-hours onsite during off-shifts.
Results: No items of noncompliance were identified in the 11 areas inspected.
4 - i 'l-8196054558 - .. - . . .- .-. -- . -.. -.. - -
.. - . .. .. - g DETAILS , , 1.
-Persons Contacted:
- R. J. Cashwell, Reactor Director S. M. Matusewic,: Supervisor, Nuclear Reactor.
M. F. Baumann, University Health Physicist, Auditor M. C. Jensen, Reactor Operator H. O. Nelson,~ Reactor. Operator:
- Denotes those present at the exit interview.
. 2.
General F This inspection, which began at 10:00 a.m.
on[ April 6,'1981 with an . ~ overall' examination. of the reactor and other laboratory -facilities oto determine that required security, radiation protection and operational safety measures were being carried out.
On April 7, the inspectors. observed the prestattup checks and startup of the reactor, the_ semi-annual special nuclear material inventory and the inventory of security keys-and locks. On April 9, the inspectors observed _ reactor operation in the pulsing mode. No problems were noted.
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- ' operation, 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.
- l The facility was being maintained properly.
c.
. d.
Records were available for inspection.
On January 12, 1981, Mr. R. J. Cashwell was appointed to the position of Reactor Director replacing Professor C. W. Maynard; W. M. Matusewie was appointed Reactor Supervisor replacing Mr. Cashwell; and Professor Said I. Abdel-Khalik was appointed to the Reactor Safety Committee ,
replacing Professor M. M. El-Wtkil.
! No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
I 4.
Reviewt and Audits
i The licensee's review and audit program records were examined by the inspector to verify that: l
-2- ! !
_ ._ . _. . . . -- . ' v.
.. ps ~
... . A - ~ , Reviews of facility Leb'anges,{ operating and maintenance proce'dures, t 'a.
design-changes, and.unreviewed experiments had been conducted:by a safety review committee as-required by Technical: Specifications;ori Hazards Summary Report.
-b.
That the review committee-and/or subcommittees were composed'of.
.-. ~ qualified members and thatEquorum requirements and frequency of.
meetings had been met.
' ~ c.
Required safety' audits had been conducted in accordance with - , ^ Technical ~ Specification' requirements and that any identified: problems were resolved.
. . - No: items of noncompliance were identified.
' ' 5.
Requalification Training .- . Thel inspector reviewed procedures, logs and Ltraining 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. 'Seven~-requalification examinations. [ had been conducted in May 1980.
No items of ncncompliance were identified.
. 6.
Procedures < . - The inspector reviewed the licensee's' procedures to determinesif 4.
procedures were issued, reviewed, changed'or updated, and approved i in accordance with Technical Specifications and HSR requirements.
- -
. i This review also verified: d r That procedure content was adequate :to safely operate, refuel-- a.
and ~ maintain the facility.
' b.
That respon'sibilities were clearly defined.
. s c.
That required checklists and forms were used.
' ' The inspector. dctermined that the required procedures' were ava'ilable
and the contents of the procedures were adequate.- j No items of noncompliance'were identified.
3 7.
Su,rveillance The inspector reviewed procedures, surveillance test'. schedules ~and test records and discussed the surveillance program with responsible e personnel to verify: That when necessary, procedures were available and adequate to, ' - a.
perform the tests.
1' - 3- , -, - - - - -
.
s----------- . _ - - -, - - - - - - - --s.,----a--,,.,-- .--,.-----_-a--.---- .- --,a---s --- --..------s---a--. - _,, - - . - - - - -.. - - -, - - - - - -, - - - _ _ _.. -, -- x
^ , % ~ J j . - b.
.That testsfwere completed within the required time schedule'.- , .c.
Test records were available.
~ No items of noncompliance were identified.: . 8.
. Experiments The, inspector verified by, reviewing experiment records and other . reactor: logs that: ' , ~ . a '. Experiment's were conducted using approved. procedures and under approved reactor conditions.-- , b,- _ New experiments or changes-in experiments lwere properly reviewed ' and approved._ , c.
The_ experiments did not involve an unreviewed safety. question, ire., 10 CFR 50.59.
d.
Experiments involving potential hazards or-reactivity change were identified in procedures.- " e.
Reactivity. limits'were not or could not have-been exceeded'during, the experiment.
No items of noncompliance'were identified.
9.
Refueling The facility fuel handling program wasL reviewed by the"insoector. 'The review included the verification of approved procedures for. ft.el' handling, and the technical adequacy of them in the areas of radiation pro-tection,_ criticality safety, Technical Specification and~ security plan requirements. The. inspector' determined by records reviey and-discussions with personnel that fuel handling operations and startup . tests were carried out in conformance to the licensee's procedures.
No items of noncompliance wer.e identified.
10.
IE Circular Followup-For the IE Circulars listed below, the. inspector verified that the-Circular was received by the -licensee management, that a review for applicability was perfcrmed, and that if the circular was applicable to the facility, appropriate corrective actions we a taken or were.
scheduled to be taken.
a.
IEC 79-08 Attempte'd Extortion-Low Enriched Uranium. , b.
IEC 80-02 Nuclear Power Plant Staff Work llours-4- _
. N e ~ c.
-IEC 80-14 Radioactive' Contamination of Plant Demineralized
Water System and~ Resultant Internal Contamination .of Personnel d.
-IEC 81-02-Performance of NRC-Licensed Individuals while on ' Duty 11. Review ol' Periodic and~Special Reports The inspector reviewed the following' reports for timeliness of submittal-and adequacy of information ' submitted: Annual Operating Rep 9rt for Licensee R-74, FY 1979-1980 ' . ,. - b.
Core Test Program, All FLIP Core, January, 1980 12.
Radiation Protection- . The inspectors reviewed records and interviewed personnel to determine that the surveillance requirements in-the area'of radiation protection had been carried out. No adverse conditions were noted.
Surveillances-reviewed were: ' a.
Daily Startup Tests (1) Set alarm points on four area radiation monitors , '2) Beam ports status, thermal column. door closed, and bridge.
entry closed ' .(3) ~ Beam port and thermal column venti 11ation on.
b.
Weekly Tests - (1) Check annunciator set points en five arca radiaticn monitors, particulate monitor and constant air monitor (2) Radiation and' contamination surveys . c.
Quarterly (1) Calibration of health physics instruments, continuous air monitor and particulate monitors.
!- d.
Semi Annual (1) Calibration of area mor.itoro, and water process instruments (2) Leak tests of sources ., (3) Etaergency procedure revie.w and drills t No items of noncompliance were identified.
l , i '"' -5- ..~2 =
- , a
13. Radioactive Effluents = . The inspectors reviewed records of gaseous, liquid and byproduct releases since the last inspection.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
14.
Security Program The inspectors reviewed records and interviewed personnel to determine , that security program requirements and surveillances were being con-ducted at the reactor facility.
?- No items of noncompliance were identified.
15. Material control and Accountability (MCA).
The inspectors reviewed t.he licensees material accountability records ' and observed the semiannual inventory on April 17, 1981. There had been no receipts or shipments since.the last MCA inspection.
I No items of noncompliance were identified.- 16. Exit Interview The inspector met with licensee representatives (denoted in Paragraph 1)
at the conclusion of the inspection on April 9, 1981, and summarized the.
scope and findings of the inspection.
.
e i e
-6- , k ._ - . .. . . . . }}