IR 05000193/1993003
| ML20057C246 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Rhode Island Atomic Energy Commission |
| Issue date: | 09/16/1993 |
| From: | Bores R, Dragoun T, Holmes S NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20057C242 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-193-93-03, 50-193-93-3, NUDOCS 9309280122 | |
| Download: ML20057C246 (4) | |
Text
__
.
.
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COAD11SSION
REGION I
Report No.
50-193/93-03
>
Locket No.
10-l_9_3 Q
-
License No.
R-95 Licensee:
Rhode Island Nuclear Science Center (RINSC)
Rhode Island Atomic Energy Commission South Ferry Road
Narragansett. Rhode Island Facility Name:
Rhode Island Nuclear Science Center Inspection At:
Narragansett. Rhode Island Inspection Conducted:
August 10-12 & 16-18. 1993
l k /6/O Inspectors:
m e
Stephen HolnMadiation S hjalist, Effluents
' date Radiation Protection Section 1 ERPS), Facilities
,
Radiological Safety and Safeguards Branch (FRSSB)
i Thomas Dragopf, Project Scientist, ERPS,FRSSB
_
V l6 9 ?
tw
~ date '
.
i l,^
.
d4A t.. 'O S
Approved By: ~
date Robert Bores, Chief, ERPS, FRSSB, Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards i
j Areas Inspected; Physical facility, surveillances, fuel shipping and receipt, fuel loading and j
initial criticality.
Results:
The reactor was restarted in a well controlled and safe manner. No violations of regulatory requirements were identified.
9309280122 930917 PDR ADDCK 05000193 G
..
.
..
DETAILS 1.0 Persons Contacted
J. Cunningham, Health Physics Tech / Reactor Operator D. Johnson, Health Physicist
- W. Simoneau, Assistant Director B. Smith, Senior Reactor Operator E. Spring, Senior Reactor Facility Engineer
- T. Tehan, Director, Rhode Island Nuclear Science Center
- Present at exit briefing.
2.0 Purpose
The purpose of this inspection was to review the activities related to the preparations for
!
and conduct of the refueling and restart of the RINSC reactor.
.
3.0 Surveillances The Technical Specifications (TS) require the performance of periodic surveillances to insure that reactor safety equipment performance is within the limits specified in the license and the facility Safety Analysis Report. The inspectors interviewed the staff and
,
reviewed surveillance records and procedures. Surveillances were being performed at the
required intervals and the results were within prescribed parameters. Surveillances that
'
were not required while the reactor was disassembled, or were waived by the NRC, needed to be performed during the startup process when the applicable systems were returned to operation. The inspectors reviewed the licensee's program for the conduct cf these surveillances and observed that surveillances applicable to the critical experiment
stage of the startup process were properly completed. The licensee's plans to complete
,
the remaining surveillances were adequate.
l
<
Prior to loading the new fuel, the licensee performed a visual inspection of the reactor
'
core suspension frame, control blades, grid box, beam tubes, and tank internals in accordance with procedure, " Inspection of Reactor Pool and Suspension Frame". This
,
'
surveillance was not required by the current TS. All of the old fuel had been removed
,
and the primary water drained. Two operators entered the tank - one remained on the
'
suspension frame to manually withdraw the control blades and the other was lowered in a boatswain chair via the overhead crane to a position just above the grid box. A third-
operator assisted from the bridge. Radiological conditions were measured prior to the entry and a HP provided coverage during the inspection. Personnel radiation exposures.
l were minimal. The inspectors noted that hard hats and life lines were not used. The
.i licensee stated that additional OSHA safety equipment will be obtained and its use will be specified in the procedur '
.
.
The inspectors observed the adjustment of the alarm and scram set points on the wide range reactor power channels to the values specified for the new core. The inspectors
,
also observed the resetting of the primary coolant low flow rate alarm and trip set points to conform to the new core requirements.
4.0 Fuel Shioment
The inspectors witnessed the shipment of 14 empty fuel containers and 4 unused high enriched uranium (HEU) fuel elements to the fuel manufacturer (Babcock and Wilcox).
The packaging, loading, bracing, labeling, placarding, and shipping documents were reviewed with respect to the requirements in 10 CFR 71,10 CFR 73, and applicable U.S. Department of Transportation requirements. No deficiencies were noted.
5.0 Fuel Receint
'
The inspectors examined the facility's QA/QC receipt procedures and the resultant i
verifications in regards to the low enriched uranium (LEU) fuel elements. Receipt of the required product documents, verification of the shipping packages, visual inspection of the elements, surface contamination surveys, and core-fit (as observed during the critical experiment) were performed and adequately documented.
The manufacturer's certification report, fuel plate radiographs and ultrasonic inspections, and as-built drawings were on hand and available to the inspectors. Within the scope of this inspection the licensee instituted an adequate QA/QC program to insure that the LEU fuel
,
met the required specifications - TRTR-5, Revision 5, and was safely received into the facility.
6.0 Facility Tour A tour was made of the reactor facilit es. General housekeeping on the reactor deck and i
experimt
. stoor was good. Radiation areas were well marked and warning signs were posted ano sections roped off to ensure personnel did not wander into the experimental i
areas.
However, an accumulation of paper and cardboard combustible material was noted in the basement areas. The licensee stated that this material belonged to various researchers and it will be removed in the near future. Corrosive and caustic chemicals were also noted in the basement. The licensee stated that these materials had been used in the past to regenerate the primary system purification resins. With a recent switch to disposable resins the chemicals were no longer needed and would be removed.
7.0 Fuel Loadine and Initial Criticality
!
The inspectors reviewed the procedure for and observed the critical experiment that led to reactor startup. The licensee used the fuel movement procedure as modified to address the specifics of the new core reload. The procedure was well written and sufficiently detailed to accomplish the reload safely and correctly. The licensee loaded
--
- -
- - -
,
.
- _ _ _
-
.
.
_.
. _.
._
-
.
.
.
.
i one fuel element at a time into the grid plate. Each element was core-fitted; i.e.,
inserted, removed, rotated 90*, reinserted, removed, inverted and reinserted. Each t
element's serial number was also verified at this time. Neutron multiplication counts were then taken with the control rods at 0% and 100% withdrawn and an inverse r
multiplication curve (1/M) was plotted to predict the number of fuel elements required
,
to reach criticality.
Communication between the control room and the fuel
,
handling / loading staff was excellent.
Two licensee staff plotted the 1/M curve individually, one using a computer program and the other manually on graph paper. The inspectors independently verified the licensee's data and predicted criticality at between 10 and 11 elements. This matched the licensee's prediction. The reactor obtained criticality with 12 elements on the grid plate. Shutdown margin and excess reactivity will be measured subsequent to the control rod calibrations. As part of the reactor startup and shutdown associated with this critical experiment, the inspectors observed the completion of the control room portion of procedures, NSC-la and NSC-lc, the Reactor Pre-Startup and Shutdown Checklists, respectively. Additionally, the inspectors reviewed the last full checklists, including the monthly addenda. The checklists were being used and maintained as required.
Within the scope of this review, the inspectors determined that the reactor was reloaded in a well controlled and safe manner. No safety concerns were identified.
i
,
8.0 Exit Interview
1 The inspectors met with the licensee representatives listed in Section 1.0 on August 17, 1993, and summarized the scope and findings of this inspection.
The licensee acknowledged the inspection findings.
.
!
>
.
i
,
I
_.
.
.
.
..
.
>
-
. -
.
.
-
..
..