ML20058F428
| ML20058F428 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000083 |
| Issue date: | 10/29/1990 |
| From: | Vernetson W FLORIDA, UNIV. OF, GAINESVILLE, FL |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9011080280 | |
| Download: ML20058F428 (3) | |
Text
--
. ? *.
- 19; 3
NUCLEAR ENGINEER 3NG SCIENCES DEPARTMENT C
Nuclear Reactor Facility
^'
- University'of Florida N..v I
0 m,eu mmo. s 3
,e,nw.aun-M== 808*8 * * '**= 6m October 29, 1990 Failure To Check Control Blade Interlocks Per SOP-A.2 - Final (14 Day) Report Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1
Suite:2900 101 Marietta Street, N.W.
- Atlanta, GA 30323 Attentioni Regional Administrator, Region.11 Re s University-of Florida Training Reactor Facility: License: R-56, Docket No. 50-83
- Gentlemeni 1 Pursuant to the. reporting requirements of _ paragraph O 6.2(g) of the - UFTR Technical Specifications,-a description'of a potential violation of the Technical Specifica-tions was' reported by telephone /telecopy(Attachment.1).on 25 October.1990 and a' final
- - 14-dayf written ; report. is submitted-with this letter to -include NRC rotification,.
s 4 -' occurrence. scenario, evaluation -of consequences, corrective:-action and current,
- - s t'atus.
Thei potentially-promptly reportable" occurrence involved ; the performance Lof three reactorastartups on 2 October 1990 without performing a. daily checkout or'the control' bladelinterlockj checks f ollowing, a previous shutdown as required in UFTR
/ SOP-A.2,'" Reactor'-Startup."
o, NRC 'Not'ification-UFTRLHanageme'ntireviewed-this occurrence on -Octobe r 25,-- 1990, f o11owing. its
- discoveryDon _0croberr24,11990..and-in consultation with 'several members of thel Reactor-1 afet'y ReviewJSubcommittee(RSRS)- concitided that rit; represented. a fpotential violation:
S m
of _c the KUFTR ; Tech Specs, Section-6.3/ pertaining to the' requirement-that theifacility L
S 7 be operatedEin accordance with written procedures.; ' NRC Notification was made per;
- Section 6.6.2 ' of ;the UFTR.. Tech Specs and reactor restart was ' approved ~ following ' the 1
performa'nce[of b retraining. on ' the,applir tble -SOP. section for ' reactor operators. _ The '-
y.,
W'
- NRCt notification L was carriedL out i, telephone to D Mr. Craig nBassett E on Thursday Octoberi 25, 19901 with "at f o116 wing telecopy on: October. 25, 1990 as - required (see t
' ).<
g pInitial Event Scenario IIn ~ reviewing Jthe C0ctober ; operations log entries _onEWednesday, October - 24,_1990, it A
- was( noted thato an apparent, violation ' of the UFTR: Standard Operating Procedures J had
~
h occurred oni 2 L0ctober, 1990.'
On 2 October, 1990, a daily checkout was started at-0810 -~'and Ecomple ted ' at "0825.
The' reactor was than-run,several. times with a shutdown
, concluded at 1539(hours.
. At > 1705. hours ' the reactor was started up for _ an extra.
series? ofc operations ; lab' exercises for an RO ' trainee and-a reactor operations - lab student.-
Prior to :this. startup at 1705 hours0.0197 days <br />0.474 hours <br />0.00282 weeks <br />6.487525e-4 months <br />,. the control ' blade withdrawal l interlocks ' were ' checked as required by ' SOP-A. 2, Paragraph 4.4.6.
However, the-contirolf blade interlocks were not ' checked following shutdown for successive rapid
+
- restarts begun at-'1733, 1804 and 1826 respectively.
f hd
?_..
h a
.OO te cooom,wwmmaanon amom.,
-i i p,(4PM-
- -aW 9011080200 901029
~y0
.g z +
PDR ADOCK 05000083I
+s S
PNU '
i
j g
a ai NRC-sFailure To Check Control Blade Interlocks
^
m
- Per SOP-A.2 - Final (14-Day) Report October 29,.1990-Page.21 Chhpter -;.4 : of -- the.' UFTR ' Technical Specifications on Surveillance ' Requirements in 4
- Section " 4.2, on Surveillance Pertaining to Limiting Conditions for Operation in Paragraph. 4.4.2 entitled, " Reactor Control a2d Safety Systems Surveillance" contains
{,
. two applicable paragraphs'(6) and (7) quoted'ai, follows:
4.2.2(6)'
The ' reactor ' shall. not be - started unless (a) the-weekly checkout =has been satisfactorily completed withini7. days prio r. ' to startup, (b) a daily checkout :is. satisf actorily completed within 8 hr
~
_ prior;to'startup, and (c)'no known condition exists that - would prevent successful completion of anweekly or daily' checkout.
- 4. 2. 2 ( 7_. )--
The : limitations established.under Paragraph 4.2.2(6);(a);and (b) can be deleted if a reactor startup. is: made within 6 hr of a normal reactor shutdown ontanylone calendar. day.
Mthough Tech Spec requirements on the restarts ' were met in all four startups-after
- 1705
- hours, l the.last three(3) startups on the: afternoon of 2; October 1990: failed'to 4
mee t'- the additional. ' requirement - delineated ' in UFTR ' SOP-A. 2, '" Reactor Startup" cin
- ParagraphT 4.4.6;,that i the. control' blade interlocks ' be checked - prior-to the restart
- when the'. daily: checkout. is omitted as uallowed under Tech Specs 4.2.2(7),' since the 7 previous Enormal' reactor. shutdown had ' occurred within 6 hours6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br />.
Therefore,. the last three(3)jUFTR?startups on 2 October: 1990 represent - a potenttal' violation of Section
-6.3f of f the' UFTR. Tech. Specs - pertaining to the requirement that'the facility be operated"in accordance.with written procedures.
Evalu tion:of Consequences, d
ic
- The reactor; staff and administration agree there was no compromise to' reactor saf ety t
1
.in this) event, nor'was there. danger of personnel receiving excess,1ve radiation doses.'
~
+
Members 'ofl the. RSRSl con'aulted in this'imatter, -including all members of the: Executive
- Committee, L also ; concur.. The) problem is administrative - in-nature and' does involve a potentialf violationL of. the7 UFTR. Tech. Spec's through omission of, a procedural step.
, Noted that 'this Levrnt is f similar to the November, c1988 ~ event ~ where! the Linterlock checks,were overlooked entirely.
Herechowever, the-operator wasyreminded to perform-the inteclock(checks the' fitse time ' and -aimply assumed' the one check was suf ficient.
.,lt1 s7 worth noting' that," had, a :new daily = checkout :been perf ormed prior. to the. first '
0!
1
_ star' tup 3ri 17051 hours. Instead of ju'st checking. the control blade interlock's, the' 4
subsequent' interlock checks wouldynot be required.
1 f
i f
s
!?
1 t
3
.j 7, q j g
- c 9 Y l.
+
o,
.a TNRCi
, Failure To Check: Control Blade Interlocks
- Per SOP-A.2 - Final (14. Day) Report.
3-
' October 29, 1990-1Page 3-
..In;this; case-there.would be no violation of SOP-A.2 and hence the Tech Specs; i;>,
,howeverl for,the blade' withdrawal'. interlock checks, the exact same checks are done in
']
theldaily checkout as when the daily is omitted per Tech Spec Paragraph 4.2.2(7).
Forothis reason = the reactor administration ;is considering deleting' the requirement ithat the bladeiinterlock checks be performed prior to every startup af ter the 8 hour-B
- limition? the daily checkout la exceeded.
A conversation-with Mr. Craig Bassett of 4
- . Region.11 on October 25, 1990. indicates this is probably the best thing to do..
i Corrective Action J.j
' Prior to restart,. all operators received retraining on the' requirements for perf orm-ling: daily checkouta contained in UFTR SOP-A.2, " Reactor Startup" in. Paragraphs 4.4.2, 4
- yv 34.4.4? and14.4.6 'with special emphasis - on the SOP A.2 requirements for the' operator
] : involved in the occurrence.'
fCurrent-Status-
< Alli operatorax have been mu, cognizant of this problem to assure -the oversight and f ailure. to perf orm L blade._ interlock checks..per UFTR = SOP-A.2,J " Reactor ;.Startup" will Luot recur.= In thelmeantime, a chaageLis being developed : co : allow. deletion of ~ this --
' interlock check pc* the.' Tech Specs;-- this change will be t reviewd-by the RSRS at..its next regular-meeting.
m
(
Sin erely,
[
s o
m
' William G.'..Vernetson Director of; Nuclear Facilities A
s a haents-b4 1-jo /Jo/$ s -
3 mm
/
No6ery.:
Date (W !
s F
cc LR.'cPiciullo
,n'
- Reactor; Safety Review Subcommittee.
NO Document. Control Desk /
M ty y
4 3
w
{; >
1
-) :
e e
um-
- - - -