ML19253C845
| ML19253C845 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000148 |
| Issue date: | 11/05/1979 |
| From: | Madsen G, Rucker M, Spangler R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19253C841 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-148-79-02, 50-148-79-2, NUDOCS 7912120239 | |
| Download: ML19253C845 (5) | |
See also: IR 05000148/1979002
Text
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
REGION IV
Report No. 50-148/79-02
Docket No. 50-148
License No. R-78
Licensce:
University of Kansas
P. O. Box 2067
Lawrence, Kansas
66044
Facility Name:
University of Kansas, Bendix Pool Reactor
Inspection At:
University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas
Inspection Conducted: October 22-24, 1979
Inspectors:
d
///f/7f
.'G. Spangler,
/
'
teactor Inspector
Ifate
h
'a p)
nf fid
H.(J. ? ucker, "ReAc' tor Inspector Aide
)lDat'eYW
Reviewed By:
d MCe[<v-
h/6/7 /
'G. L. Madsen, Chief, Reactor Operations and
Date
Nuclear Support Branch
Inspection Summary
Inspection on October 22-24, 1979 (Report No. 50-148/79-02)
Areas Inspected:
Routine, unannounced inspection of organization, logs and
records; review and audit; requalification training; surveillance; experiments;
radiation control; follow-up on inspector identified problems; and follow-up
on items of noncompliance. The inspection involved 36 inspector-hours on-site
by two (2) NRC inspectors.
Results: Of the eight areas inspected, no items of noncompliance or deviations
were found in seven areas; one apparent item of noncompliance was found during
the review of logs and records (Infraction - failure to properly implement a
design change (paragraph 3)).
1539
336
y,121 eo z 3 'l
2
DETAILS
1.
Persons Contacted
B. Friesen, Radiation Safety Officer
- R. Mesler, Reactor Supervisor
J. Price, Radiation Safety Technician
- H. Woody, Reactor Operator
- Denotes those present during the exit interview.
2.
Inspector Follow-up
(Closed) Item of Noncompliance (Inspection Report No. 78-01, paragraph 10):
Use of a Superseded Procedure During the 1978 Fuel Inspection.
The inspector verified that the licensee conducted a review of procedure
files and that all superseded procedure copies were removed or clearly
identii~ed.
(Closed) Unresolved Item 7801-1 (Inspection Report No. 78-01, paragraph 5):
Failure to Complete Air and Water Sample Data Sheets and to Perform
Timely Instrument Calibrations.
,
The inspector's review of activities in the area of radiation control
(see paragraph 8 of this report) indicates that the licensee is now
completing all sample data sheets and has calibrated all radiation
instrumentation this year.
3.
Organization, Logs and Records
The inspector reviewed the facility operations log and associated startup
checksheets for the period December 12, 1978 to October 11, 1979 and the
annual report dated July 16, 1979. The logs and the annual report appear
to be complete and to represent an accurate history of the facility's
operation.
It also appears that the Technical Specification requirements
addressing the facility organization are being met.
During this review
the inspector found that the reactor had been started on October 9 and 11,
1979, with an EG&G Ortic linear amplifier used in place of the original
linear amplifier unit in the startup reactor instrumentation circuit.
Further review indicated the following:
(a) The Nuclear Reactor Committee had not reviewed this modification.
(b) There was no approved calibration procedure available.
(c) There was no record that the linear amplifier had been calibrated
prior to reactor startup.
1539 337
3
(d) There was no startup test procedure utilized for the test and
checkout of the modified startup circuit.
Items (c) and (d) above preclude the licensee from demonstrating full
compliance with Technical Specification F.7 which requires the
safety interlocks listed in Table II of the Technical Specifications
to be operable. From discussions with the Reactor Operator and
Reactor Supervisor it does appear that the linear amplifier was in
calibration and that appropriate precautions were exercised during
the October 9 and 11 reactor startups although these were not
documented. However, Technical Specification J.2 states:
"2.
The Nuclear Reactor Committee shall be responsible for the
review of:
"a.
Operation of the nuclear reactor.
"b.
Conformity of operations with the Technical Specifications.
"c.
Unusual incidents and occurrences.
"d.
Any additions, modifications, or maintenance to the core
and its associated support structure, the pool coolant
system, the rod drive mechanism, or the reactor safety
system to determine that they are made and tested in
accordance with the specifications to which the systems
were originally designed and fabricated, or to specifi-
cations approved by the Nuclear Reactor Committee.
"e.
Changes in the facility or procedures to determine if
they constitute (1) unreviewed safety questions and/or
changes in Technical Specifications, and therefore
require license amendment prior to implementation, or
are (2) previously authorized within the boundaries of the
existing license and technical specification and therefore
do not require further action prior to execution, and/or
are (3) reportable under paragraph 50.59 of 10 CFR 50."
The failure of the Nuclear Review Committee to conduct the reviews
required by (d) and (c) above for this system modification con-
stitutes an item of noncompliance at the infraction level.
4.
Review and Audit
The inspector examined the Nuclear Review Committee minutes for
December 4, 1978, March 20, 1979, May 8, 1979 and September 19, 1979 and
the facility annual audit conducted on July 5, 1979.
It appears that
the Nuclear Review Committee met quarterly with a quorum present as
1539
338
- - _ .
-
.
4
required by the Technical Specifications. Several minor problems were
identified on the annual audit and resolved by the Nuclear Review Committee
during their review of the audit results.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
5.
Surveillance
The inspector verified that all surveillance activities were conducted at
the required frequency and provided acceptable results. All Technical
Specification design criteria, limiting conditions for operation, and
limiting safety system settings appear to have been met.
The following
procedures were selected for technical review:
(a) Rod Drop Times
(b) Cobalt-60 Standard Irradiations
(c) Safety Channel Test
(d) Safety Amplifier Test
No items of noncompliance or deviations were found.
6.
Experiments
The inspector reviewed the Irradiation Record and Order Forms from
September 14, 1978 to September 20, 1979. The irradiations documented
on these forms were the only experimental activities conducted at the
facility and they consisted of only neutron absorber materials. Each
irradiation was reviewed and approved according to the facility's Ex-
periments Procedure. The inspectors discussed the packaging and handling
precautions used for these irradiations with the reactor operator who
conducted them.
No adverse findings were identified.
7.
Research Reactor Requalification Training
The inspector reviewed the Requalification Record for 1978 and found:
(1) Annual Evaluation Reactor Operator Performance for individuals H. R.
Rosson and H. O. k'oody had been performed on December 26, 1978; and
(2) the Annual Review of Emergency Procedures and Changes to the operating
license was conducted for these individuals on September 18, 1978.
1539
339
s
.
5
The inspector noted that written examinations were due prior to the
end of 1979, and one Senior Reactor Operator, H. R. Rosson, appears
to have been inactive for longer than a four month period.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
8.
Radiation Control
The inspector reviewed the facility's procedures, posting requirements,
radiation area markings, personal monitoring devices, conducted an area
survey, and reviewed the following records from October 9,1978 to
Octcher 12, 1979:
a.
Air Sampling Data Sheets
b.
Water Sampling Data Sheets
c.
Radioactive Waste Burial Log
d.
Calibrations (Instruments)
e.
Area Surveys
f.
Records of External Radiation Exposure
All recorded levels of radiation and exposu'res appeared to be within
prescribed limits. The sample data sheets were completed and instrument
calibrations had been performed during this year. The inspector suggested
to the Radiation Safety Officer and to the Reactor Supervisor that a
visitor sign-in log be maintained for the reactor facility and that
they should require at least once or twice a year that the area radiation
survey be conducted with the reactor at 250kW.
No additional items were identified.
9.
Exit Interview
An exit interview was held with representatives of the licensee on
October 24, 1979, at the conclusion of this inspection. The inspectors
discussed the findings noted in the previous paragraphs and they were
acknowledged by the licensee representatives.
1539 340