IR 05000602/1990002
| ML18285A684 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | University of Texas at Austin |
| Issue date: | 05/09/1990 |
| From: | Konwinski G, Murphy M NRC Region 4 |
| To: | University of Texas at Austin |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18285A704 | List:
|
| References | |
| IR 1990002, NUDOCS 9005150301 | |
| Download: ML18285A684 (7) | |
Text
APPENDIX U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY C°"'11SSJON
REGION IV
NRC Inspection Report: 50-602/90-02 Construction Permit: CPRR-123 Docket: 50 ..602 Licensee: University of Texas College of Engineering Department of Mechanical Engineering Nuclear Engineering Program Austin, Texas 78712 Facility Name: Nuclear Engineering Teaching Laboratory (NETL) (Triga Mark II)
Inspection At: NETL, Balcones Research Center Inspection Conducted: April 17, 1990 {Onsite); April ?3-27, 1990 (lnoffice)
Inspectors:
.urphy. 'eacrspector, Test Programs Section, Division of Reactor Safety (,,..,_. tt onwuisf, Manager, Oran ium Recovery Field Office, RIV I
/ '
. //
.' .
/r 1--
/
Approved: >/1/10 w.Oivis1on C. Seidle,(lhief, Test Programs Section of Reactor Safety Date Inspection Sunnary Inspection Conducted April 17-?7 1 1990 (Report 50-602/90-02)
Areas Inspected: Routine, announced inspection to followup on a public al legatio 'i.1(){1""' 1 * *.....
L : . *' *-"., ._:.. o 1 f rR I,:)
rmr, 1* l,
- * Result,: One public allegation remained open following the issuance of NRC Inspection Report 50-602/90-01. This allegation concerned the possibility that a water spring existed under the Nuclear Engineering Teaching laboratory (NETL)
building and the allegation remained open pending further hydrogeological review. A hydrogeologist from the Region IV Uran11Jm Recovery Field Office conducted a site visit and reviewed several sources of information to determine if the alleged spring existed and, if it did, what could the ground water safety impact be on the acility. There was no safety concern identifie DETAILS 1. PERSONS CONTACTED
- T. L. Bauer, Reactor Superv1sor
- +B. W. Wehring, Director, Nuclear
+Denotes attendance at the exit interview conducted April 17, 1990.
- Denotes participation in the telephone exit interview conducted on May 2, 1990. FOLLOWUP TO PUBLIC ALLEGATIONS The NRC Region IV office became aware of allegations made by a former construction contractor for the University of Texas Triga Mark II Facility in newspaper articles appearing in the December 1989 issues of the "Austin American Sta1..esman 11 and "The Daily Texan." Subsequent telephone contacts with the contractor and his successor to clarify the technical issues resulted in the identification of six specific concerns. Five of these allegations were found to have no safety concern as documented in NRC Inspection Report 50-602/90-01. Te remaining allegation was addressed by this inspection.
Concern: The * -tor site has an underground spring that was capped during construct1on. The spring is alleged to be located on the ramp side of the reactor building approximately 12 fet inside of the reactor building bay door. Water in-leakage has occurred in the fuel torage tubes, sump areas, and the heat exchanger room.
During this inspection, several sources of information were reviewed to determine if the alleged spring existed and, if it did, what the ground-water safety impact could be on the facility. Of the reviewed documents, several pieces of information were utilized to determine water levels and construction practices. These documents are as follows:
Subsurface Exploration Logs B-lP, 8-2, B-3, and B-4, Section 02010, specifications for: Nuclear Engineering Teaching Laboratory, Balcones Research Center, The University of Texas at Austin, Project No. 102-568, September 15, 1986.
A drawing illustrating the over excavation under the reactor submitted by cover letter dated July 23, 1987, from Construction Incorporated of Texas, Stafford Texa I
Drawings A 2.1 and A 2.3 1 trom the as-built construction drawing package.
Item 6, "Reference Material," submitted by the University of Texas in response to the allegation consisting of daily construction quality control reports and foundation inspection report A review of these documents indicated that there is a presence 01 ground water at the site. However, the reference to a spring is most likely an interpretation of an individual working on the site on a given day. The term 11 1:ipring" is defined as a place where water flows upon the lan This would indicate that some preure exists which would cause the water to flow. There were no data to support the allegation that a spring or a form of flowing water existed at the site.
Notwithstanding the above, the presence or absence of a spring is probably not the relevant issue at the site. More importantly, the presence of ground water at the site should be explored to determ1ne if it will have any impact on the operation of the facility. A great majority of the construction logs, boring reports, and daily reports indicate the presence of ground water adjacent to and underlying the reactor building. The construction reports that do not indicate the presence of ground water most likely represent an oversight on behalf of individuals rather than the true absence of ground water. As shown below, ground water is noted to be found in numerous borings and foundation pier voids.
Soil Penetrations With Water Present Borings Water Elevation (Mean Sea Level)
B-IP 782.0' msl B-2 781. 0' ms l B-3 780.' msl Foundations Pier Void Moisture Notes 0-8 3" water G-7 and 0-9 encountered water severely in both holes G-9 seepage of water in pier E-10 5" of water in pier ER-I and lR-9 slight seepage, water pumped out G.5A 2" of water in pier F-2 4" of water in pier F-4 3" of water in pier E-8 5" of water in pier 0-7 water seepage in pier Soil Penetrations Without Water Present ER-5, ER-6, ER-7, ER-10, ER-11, ER-12, ER-2, G-6, F-3, E.1-3, 0-2, 0-2, E-7, E-9, and 0-6.
The construction data indicates that ground wat** is present over the entire site. Based upon the data associated with the B-1 to B-4 borings, the static water level is located at approximately 781 feet above mean sea level (msl) as of a May to June time-frame. In this type of near surface aquifer, significant
seasona1 var ht 1 or1 can be expected. The water levels associated with the foundation pier voids do not represent static water levels and are not, therefore, re11ab1P in defining the water surfaces, but can be used to note subsurfaLe areas where water was encountered.
There are several other elevations and water conveyance structures that are important in determining where ground waters at the site will move. Two perimpter drainage ystem have been installed at the reactor building. A foundation drain at elevation 785 fet above msl surrounds the perimeter of the bu11dtng. This system gravity drains to a catch basin where it is pumped to a storm sewer. Additionally, a drain embedded in a gravel pack underlying the reactor vessel at an elevation of 781 feet above msl (the estimated static water level) gravity drains to a sump where any water encountered is pumped to a drain system. The finished floor level of the rev *.or is at 787 feet above nt$1. These water levels are graphically shown in FiJre 1.
These two systems can be considered as ground-water sinks that have the ability to control water encountered 1n the underlying strata as well as its weathered surface. Consider1n9 the drainage systems that txist at the site, ground water should be consistently drained at a depth of 785 feet above msl at the tiuilding's perimeter and 781 feet obon msl at the base of the reactor vesel.
These depths are 2 feet af\d 6 feet, respectively, below the floor of the bu11d1ng. Therefvr,, if the drainage systems perform as designed, then the water surface in the vicinity of the reactor vessel should always be lower than the floor of thP. structure.
Should the drain system fail. seasonal variations in ground water at. this site could cause water to enter the building. This leads to the conclusion that sotne quality assurance associated with the drain operation should be implementett. Fortunately. such a mechanism exists at the site. So11 boring 8-lr was cased and dPveloped as a piezometer located in the reactor room. If additional assurance. as to the functionif\g of the drains is thought to be nec.essary. then the piezometer's water level should be monitored. If the drain are functioning as designed. the water level should never rise beyond 781 fePt above msl.
The data that was recc1ved indicatPs that a spr1ng probably does not exist at the site. However, there is ground water under and adjacent to the reactor building. The water levels will be controlled by thP two drainage systems that exist at the site. if they function as designed. Additional quality asurance of these systems can be dveloped if the water level in piezometer 8-lP i monitored. Jf thP drain systems are operating, the water level in B-lP will be at or bPlow the reactor foundation level.
After discuss ions, the 1i censee agreed to implement periPdic monitoring of the w11ter level in piezometer 8-lP. Since the cleaning and closure, there has been no water found in the fuel storage tubes. Actions taken during construction to seal the construction joint between the floor and wall of the liquid waste room
"
' "
'
.,,..'A ' '.
\,,)
,.,
\
,....
- ' ,;, -
..(,.
sump appear to have resolved water intrusion in this area. The eat exchnger room leaks were in the area of the wall tilt panel joint and appear to be surface.water runoff related becaus of thP rel,tie heights of grade levei and leakage point. The tilt panel joint t:Js been repaired and there h r,o apparent leakage at this t;me.
Based on the review of documents and a waH:down cf the sit.fl areas of concern the allegation was partially substantiatecJ; however. water ;nt.rusion appeared to be tonstructiofi related and effective repairs have been mad. No safety concerns were identified.
3. !J.T IHTfPVIEW The inspection scope and findings were discussed with personnel designated 1n paragraph 1 at the conclusion of the site visit on April 17. 1990, and by telephone at the conclusion of the 1npction on May 1, 1990. The licensee did not identify as proprietary any of the material provided to, or reviewed by, the inspector'.;.
, --*---- -----*---**---*------*-----*---
.. *---*** ---**** *--,
FIGURE ONE VARIOUS ELEVATIONS AT THE BALCONES RESEARCH CENTER
, 800 **-*-*-- ---*-----
I LEGEND
.
I' *> rr
! .! 715 r ,l r:,.,JiC'lH.'J r.*1 oor:,
(1d J I j j .... JI , .._ ; t,_ * '
l 0
I ,, 110 FOUNDATION DRA:N I C
[:J STAr,c WATER L[VLL 11)
'. .
E 1u Cl)
,*- .... ,\\\
\: REA(TJR DRAIW Jl 710
r Ii\ ',
\\'
' \\'
L__ -. * *---- *- -*- -*- -
FEATURES
---*-* *-" *-*
wto grk
I