IR 05000062/1985003

Insp Repts 50-062/85-03 & 50-396/85-01 on 851106-08.No Violations or Deviations Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Plant Operations & Operating Records,Staff Organizations & Svcs, Including Audit Functions & Training

ML20138N646
Person / Time
Site:	University of Virginia
Issue date:	12/05/1985
From:	Branch M, Burke D, Fredrickson P NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
To:
Shared Package
ML20138N611	List: IR 05000062/1985003 ML20138N609
References
50-062-85-03, 50-396-85-01, 50-396-85-1, 50-62-85-3, NUDOCS 8512240097
Download: ML20138N646 (6)

Text

,

a Cree UNITED STATES f *o

1. ,'

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[ REGloN 11 g j 101 MARIETTA STREET, * ATLANTA, GEORGI A 30323

'c

\..**/

+

Report Nos.: 50-62/85-03 and 50-396/85-01 Licensee: University of Virginia Charlottesville, VA 22901 Docket Nos.: 50-62 and 50-396-Facility Name: University of Virginia Reactor UVAR and Cavalier Inspection Conducted: November 8, 1985 Inspectors: / r M /z/u /Ir r~Signed D . ' 'J . rke,"denior Resident Inspector - Surry [ Tat'e i _u -

ranch,'denior Resident Inspector -

~ Lt/S)35

~

M. W Date Signed f rth A -

Approved by: . ' \.

P. E. Fredrickson, Section thief

'--

/ [L[YM Tate $1gned Division of Reactor Projects l

SUMMARY

! Scope: This routine, unannounced inspection entailed 33 inspector-hours onsite I

I in the areas of plant operations and operating records, staff organizations and services including audit functions and training, research reactor procedures, surveillances, and refueling records, reactor experiments, and licensee action on l previous item Results: In the areas inspected, no violations or deviations were identifie . ~ . .

P B512240097 85120602 PDR ADOCK 050

- - _ . . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - . - - --.

s,

.

REPORT DETAILS Persons Contacted Licensee Employees

• T. G. Williamson, Chairman, Nuclear Engineering and Engineering Physics Department

• R. V. Mulder, Director, Nuclear Reactor Facility J. P. Farrar, Reactor Supervisor i *P. E. Benneche, Reactor Operations Supervisor B. Hosticka (SRO), and Other Reactor Operators l

" Attended exit interview Exit Interview The inspection scope and findings were summarized on November 8, 1985, with those perseas indicated in paragraph.1 above. The licensee did not identify as proprietary any of the materials provided to or reviewed by the  ;

inspectors during this inspectio . Licensee Action on Previous Enforcement Matters l

This subject was not addressed in the inspectio ' Unresolved Items Unresolved items were not. identified during this inspectio . Plant Operations and Operating Record The inspectors examined the operating logs for 1984 and 1985 to verify that significant operations and maintenance activities were properl documented and reviewe In addition, the inspectors observed the completion 'of various pre-startup checklists and tests on Novembe'r 7, 1985, in accordance with S0P 4-1 prior to ~the. UVAR reactor startu .

Several Safety System and Measuring channels in TS Tables 3.1. and were demonstrated to be operable by channel displays and initiation of SCRAM trips when setpoints were exceeded during the pre-startup checklist and testings. ' The inspectors also witnessed the ' closure of

- the personnel door and ventilation exhaust duct during -the bridge radiation monitor alarm testing, to ensure confinement capability. The inspectors then observed the approach to criticality and power operatt er: of the .UVA At 9:55 a.m., the UVAR = went critical; the control rod critical positions 'were 12.72 inches (Reg Rod approx.11 inches), or one inch above the minimum critical rod positions, ensuring adequate shutdown margin on core configuration 15 ;

k_____._.____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . - - _ _ _ - - -

_

___ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ ._- . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

. .

.

O

Staffing of the facility during operations was also certified to be in accordance with Technical Specifications (TS) 6.1.3. Within the areas inspected, no violations were identifie The inspectors did recommend that the labeling and identification of control room equiptrent be reviewed for improvement; the Rabbit radiation monitor picoammeter, for example, had no identification tags or setpoint marks, although the alarm setpoint (240 mr/hr underwater)

was properly verified prior to use. Open Item (62/85-03-01), Label and identify control room equipment, including setpoints, b. During review of the latest Annual Report, dated January 24, 1985, the inspectors noted in the maintenance section that a leak occurred in the primary coolant system (pool) demineralizer piping on July 19, 1984; the piping was epoxyed and returned to service. On September 29, 1984, the leak reoccurred overnight and resulted in the loss of some 3,000 gallons (approx. one foot) of. pool water into the demineralizer and heat exchanger room before the system was isolated. The piping between the pump and filter was replaced and no subsequent leakage has l

occurre The low pool level automatic isolation was also reset to activate at two inches rather than one foot. During the inspection of the demineralizer piping, the inspectors noted that various materials were used in the demineralizer and recirculation piping (e.g., plastic, aluminum, and cast piping and elbows). The original specifications for both the system design and the system materials could not be located by the licensee. Although the -system operates at low pressures (e.g. ,15 to 20 psig), and is automatically isolated by low pool level, the l inspectors requested that some analysis of the system piping be l performed to verify its integrity under all operating conditions, and to specify piping materials if replacements become necessary. Open ,

Item (62/85-03-02), Analyze demineralizer piping for material l specification l, The inspectors also noted that several nuclear instrumentation detectors and connectors were replaced or rebuilt during the year (e.g., power range channel 2 detector replaced three times), and recommended that an engineering review be performed to determine the l cause of failures, and if appropriate, a cost benefit analysis be  ;

considered to reduce the failure rates with upgraded equipment or- ,

repair In addition, the UVAR reactor experienced some 60 unplanned  :

shutdowns or reactor SCRAMS ' during 1984. Many were caused by l

'

instrument noise on power range channel 2, or NI or RM detector response to fuel movement The inspectors recommended that the i'

licensee review the shutdowns to determine if corrective actions can be taken on generic trip initiator Open Item (62/85-03-03), SCRAM reduction progra i n

w_ _ _ _- _ -

__ ___-- - - . - _ .

%

.

I 3 l l

\

i The inspectors also noted that a few UVAR SCRAMS were missing from the Unplanned Shutdown list .in Section 6 of the 1984 Annual Report (e.g. ,

7/18/84, 8/28.84, 10/20/84, 11/28/84 SCRAMS), although they were properly listed in the logbooks and on the Master list which is retyped into the Annual Report. The licensee is submitting a supplement'to the Report for the missing emergency shutdowns and SCRAMS, as well as the corrective action taken to ensure compliance with TS 6.6.2(4). Open Item (62/85-03-04), Correct SCRAM listing in 1984 Annual Repor A routine tour and inspection was made on the Cavalier reactor also; no violations were identified.

l

' (Closed) Open Item (50-62/85-03-01), A licensee review of the SAR was completed prior to January 31, 1984, and resulted in the updating of the document. For example, the new curved plate fuel is now described in the SAR. This item is closed. .

6. . Procedures The inspectors verified that the content and scope of the facility procedures were adequate to control safety-related operations, and that an effective procedural control system had been establishe Significant expansions in the Emergency and Health Physics procedures have occurred over the past 18 month The inspectors also verified that appropriate procedures were used by the operators and staff during testing and manipulation -of the reactor control Specific inspector comments on procedures may be found in paragrapns 5.a and Within the areas inspected, no violations were identifie . Sur'veillance Testing The inspectors examined the licensee's surveillance and testing programs to ensure procedural adequacy and to verify that periodic testing and calibrations. are being conducted in accordance with the Technical Specifications surveillance requirement The performance of various pre-startup checklists and tests were observed as described in paragraph of this repor In addition, the inspectors reviewed certain calibration and testing records completed over the past 18 months which included the following: Rod drop tests and visual ' inspections; the inspectors noted that control rod 3 magnet current was less than half the amperage through

- CRs 1 and 2, due to a new armatur However, the magnet release and rod drop times of all rods were within the TS requirement Primary Coolant-System Flow instrumentatio Emergency Core Spray System flow testin . Pool level instrumentation:

____ _ . . _ _ . . _ . . . . . . . . . - . . . _ . _ . . _ . . _ . . . .

.

.

. Pool level / demineralize system trip verificatio Power Range #2 calibration Primary heat balance calculations and correlation checks with nuclear instrumentatio Primary coolant conductivity and p Within the areas inspected, no violations were identified. The inspectors did recommend that the Radiation Monitoring Systems (RMS) calibration procedures (7.2), be expanded to include additional instructions and acceptance criteria; the procedure currently refers to the vendors manuals for calibration and maintenance of the detectors and channels (e.g., Bridge RMS). Open Item (62/85-03-05), Upgrade RMS calibration procedure . Review and Audit Function The inspectors reviewed the 1984 and 1985 Reactor Safety Committee (RSC)

meeting minutes and verified the following:

-

Qualification of personnel satisfied those specified in Technical Specifications (TS) and the Committee Charter

-

.A quorum was present and meeting frequencies satisfied TS requirement Although few design changes were made to the facility in the 1984-1985 time frame, one major modification was reviewe The modification reviewed involved the installation of a pneumatic rabbit system for the delivery of experiments in and out of the UVAR reactor. The inspectors found that the Safety Evaluation as well as the RSC review of the modification was detailed and provided an excellent basis for determination of the safety implications of the modifications. The inspectors did note, however, that the checklist discussed in the Quality _ Assurance Program Description (QAPD) was not utilized for this modification. Although no formal commitment to utilize this checkli st could be found, the inspectors did recommend that the checklist be used for review of modifications since it provides a sound basis for making the 10 CFR 50.59 safety determinatio The inspectors did identify one item of concern which involved the blanket '

approval given by the RSC on April 17, 1979, or :ff re configuration changes; the operating staff has interpreted this Spe eval to mean that core configuration changes may be made wit M te 3r committee approva Specifically, the operating staff frequuJt y w core configuration changes without prior committee approval providw.g tem change is similar to one previously used and providing that excess reactivity and shutdown margin are verified to be within TS limit The committee is provided with an information copy of the core changes made as well as the excess reactivity

,

a l

!

L_

.. . . _

..

.

and shutdown margin measurements made.~after ' loadin The inspectors reviewed Section 5 of the UVAR TS and determined that freedom to safely change core configurations, providing excess reactivity and shutdown margin are within limits, is a design feature of the reacto However, the inspectors requested that the RSC review this matter to determine if a pre-established safety envelope should be provided by the RSC to the operating staff to ensure that core configurations have been previously used or properly reviewed prior to operation Open Item (62/85-03-06),

Consideration of a safety envelope for various core configuration change . Experiments

'

Durir.g inspection of the 1984 and 1985 RSC meeting minutes, the inspectors  !

reviewed several new non-routine experiments that had been approved. One i such experiment dealt with the irradiation of gem stones for the purpose of  !

improving their luster qualit The experiment was approved prior to i accomplishment as required by TS and the accompanying safety analysis contained sufficient detail to make a hazard.s determination. Additionally,

the inspectors verified that experiments were evaluated as to whether they should be fixed to the core or movable and that reactivity limits had been i established. on movable experiments. The rabbit facility was also reviewed i

'

as discussed in paragraph ,

No violations or deviations were identifie '

I

-

.

.

>

I i t

.

!

!

!

i t

a

.

. , . . _ , . . , , . , . , _ - . . . . . , . _ . . . - , . . _ . . _ . - - - - - - _ - . _ , _ _