ML20197B807
| ML20197B807 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | University of Virginia |
| Issue date: | 03/04/1998 |
| From: | NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20197B794 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-062-98-201, 50-62-98-201, NUDOCS 9803120064 | |
| Download: ML20197B807 (15) | |
See also: IR 05000062/1998201
Text
.
.
_ _ _ _ . .
.m..
_ . _ . . - _ . . . - . _ , . . _ _ _ _ _ . _ . . . _ .. .
,l
.
.
-
,
..
,
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION
i.
-
Docket No.:
50-62
.
1-
l
= License No.:
R 66
,
4
Report No.:
50-62/98 201
!
i
l
Licensee:
University of Virginia
!
.
Facility:
University of Virginia Reactor (UVAR)
- .
f
Location:
Charlottesville, VA 22901
i
inspection Conducted: Januury 26-28,'1998
Inspector:
C. Bassett, Senior Non Power Reactor Inspector
Approved by:
Marvin M. Mendonca, Acting Director
Non-Power Reactors and Decommissioning
Project Directorate
.i
1-
,
'
.
$
k
4
=
!
r
'
9003120064 980304
ADOCK 05000062
G
'
_
.
.
.
-
- -
.
.
.
.
-
.
_
_ - . .
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_____-
.
.
.
,
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
University of Virginia Reactor (UVAR)
NRC Inspection Report No. 50-02/98 201
The primary focus of this routine, announced inspection was the on-site review of the
emergency preparedness program of this Class I non-power reactor including organization,
f acilities and equipment, safety committee actions and audits, procedures and training,
offsite agency support, and drills and exercises.
Chanaes. Oroanization. and Staffina
The licensee's organization and staffing remain in compliance with the requirements
e
specified in the Technical Specifications.
Chances to the Emeroency Plan and imolementina Procedures
Changes made to the Emergency Plan and implementing procedures were made in
accordcnce with 10 CFR 50.54(q) and revisions were distributed in a timely manner.
,
Emeroencv Preoaredness Proaram imolementation/ Exercises and Drills
!
Tl o most recent annual on-site emergency exercise was conducted in accordance with
requirements outlined in the Emergency Plan.
l
Licensee personnel designated as responders to the " emergency" were cognizant of
I
their responsibilities.
!
Emergency response f acilities, equipment, instrumentation, and supplies were
maintained as required.
Offsite Succort
The licensee maintained coitact with offsite agencies through Letters of Agreement and
periodic commuriication that confirmed support for the f acility in case of an emergency.
Of fsite agencies participated in simulated emergencies biennially as required by the
Emeraency Alarms and Communications Systems
Alarms and communication systems were being maintained as required.
An inspector Follow-up item was established concerning the licensee's decision to
install an additional alarm in the reactor room.
An apparent violation was noted for failure to test the evacuation alarm every six
months as required by the Emergency Plan.
.
_
_ . _ . . _ . . . _ _ _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
. . . , , . . . . . , , , . . , . . . , , , , . . _ , . .
-.
.
2
Tralnina
The training provided to emergency responders by the licensee was acceptable and
e
complied with the requirements in the Emergency Plan.
Follow un on Previous Onen items
One Inspector Follow-up item and an Exercise Weakness were closed.
One Inspector Follow up item remains open following a review of the issue.
An apparent deviation was noted following a review of the licensee's actions in
response to the Exercise Weakness.
I
-
_
>
.
+ ,
.
9
REPORT DETAILS
l
Summary of Plant Str.tus
The licensee's two megawatt (2 MW) research reactor continues to be operated !n support
of graduate instruction end laboratory experiments, reactor operator training, and various
types of research. During the inspection, the reactor was being started up, operated, and
shutdown as required to support training and research.
1. Organization and Staffing (82745)
.
a. insoection Scone
The inspector reviewed the following regarding the licensee's organization and -
staffing to ensure that the requirements of TS Sections 6.1.1, 6,1.2, and 6.1.3 were
met:
e the organizational structure,
e management responsibilities, and
staffing requirements for safe operation of the UVAR facility.
-e
- b. Observations and Findinas
Through discussions with licensee representatives the inspector determinec: that
management responsibilities and the organization at the facility had not changed
since the previous NRC inspection of emergency preparedness in November 1996
(Inspection Report No. 50-62/96-03). The inspector determined that the MANE
Department Chairman retained overall responsibility for management of the facility
and emergency preparedness as specified in the TS.
Through observation of operations and discussions with licensee personnel, the
inspector determined that the staff;ng at the facility was adequate to support the
>
.
work and any emergencics that might develop. Although staffing met the
'
requirements of the Technical Specifications and the Emergency Plan, the inspecter
noted that additional personnel would be required to support any increase in the
workload.
c. Conclusions
The licensee's organization and staffing remain in compliance with the requirements
specified in the Technical Specifications and Emergency Plan.
...
.
..
. . .
.
..
..
.
.
.
.
.
2
2. Changes to the Emergency Plan and implementing Procedures (82745)
a insoet.tlon Scone
l'he inspector reviewed the following to ensure that changes, if any, to the
Emergency P an and implementing procedures were made in accordance with 10 CFR 50.54(q):
the review, approval, and distribution process for the Emergency Plan,
the review, approval, and distribution process for the implementing procedures,
e
and
documentation of changes made to the Emergency Plan and implementing
e
procedures,
b. Observations and Findinos
The inspector reviewed documentation and discussed changes to the Emergency
Plan and implementing procedures with licensee pe sonnel. It was noted that the
last major update and revision to the Emergency Plan, Revision (Rev.) 3, was
approved and submitted for NRC review and approval on March 10,1995. By letter
dated June 11,1996, the NRC approved the changes. Since then, no major
revisions or changes have been made. The inspector also noted that changes have
been made to the implementing procedures but these have been minor in nature and
have involved administrative issues such as personnellistings and telephone number
changes. It was also noted that the Emergency Plan and procedures had been
distributed to the staff members and other agencies as required.
c. Conclusions
Based on interviews with licensee personnel and documentation reviews, the
changes were made in accordance with 10 CFR 50.54(q) and distributed in a timely
manner.
3. Emergency Preparedness Program implementation / Exercises and Drills (82745)
a. Insoection Scoce
The inspector reviewed the following to ensure that the Emergency Plan and
associated crocedures were t'eing implemented consistently with the TS and the
requirements specified in the Emergency Plan:
the performance of emergency response personnelin simulated emergency
situations,
e the condition of emergency response f acilities, equipment, instrumentation, and
supplies, and
- the documentation of recent drills and exercises.
_ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ -
_-_
o
.
.
.
.
3-
b. Observations and Findinos
The inspector reviewed the results of the most rr. cent annual on site emergency
exercise conducted at the facility on January 13, 998. The inspector reviewed the
(
scenario and a checklist of the time line of events used in the exercise. Alt >
t
reviewed was the detailsJ description of sne emergency responders' actions as noted
by the designated observers and a summary of the critique of the exercise by the
participants and observers. The exercise was conducted in accordance with, and
fulfilled the requirements stipulated ir, the Emergency Plan. Key licensee emergency
response personnel demonstrated that they could respond to emergencies as
required. Offsite response agency communications verifications were completed as
required by the Emergency Plan.
The inspector toured the licensee's f acility and observed the facilities, equipment,
instrumentation, and supplies that would be used for response to an emergency, it
was noted that they were being maintained in a state of readiness as required by the
Emergency Plan. Copies of the Emergency Plan and the implementing procedures
'
were noted to be available in various locations as required.
c. Conclusions
!
The mos
ent annual on-site emergency exercise was conducted according to
j
'equiremei 4 outlined in the Emergency Plan. Licensee personnel designated as
responders to the " emergency" were ;ognizant of their responsibilities. Emergency
response f acilities, equipment, instrumentation, and supplies were maintained as
required.
!'
4. Offsite Suooort (82745)
a. insoection Scoce
The ir'spector reviewed the following to ensure that offsite support would be
available to the facility as indicated in the Emergency Plan:
Letters of Agreement signed by offsite agencies,
training provided to the offsite agencies, and
coordination and communication with these agencies,
b Qassrvations and Findinas
The inspector reviewed the Letters of Agreement and noted that all the agen-Ms
specified in the Emergency Plan had signed letters indicating various types of
support for the f acility in case of a problem. All the letters were current but were
being reviewed and renewed during this calendar year. Although no training had
been provided to offsite personnel, it was noted that such training and site
f amiliarization had been offered through letters to the agen 'as issued during 1996.
l
l
s
_
_
_- . _
_ _ _ _ _ _ . - > _
'
.
.
-4-
During the most recent drill, offsite agencies had not participated directly because'
they had participated in last year's drill and are only required to participate bienially.
)
However, various groups were contacted by telephone as required by procedure.
'
Offsite participation had been accomplished during the exercise conducted on
November 19,1996. Participation of the offs!!e agencies was determined to be
acceptable and communications were deemed satisfactory,
c. Conclusions
The licensee maintained contact with offsite agencies through Letters of Agreement
and periodic communication that confirmed support for the facility in case of an
emergency. Offsite agencies participated in simulated emr,rgencies biennially as
required by the Emergency Plan.
5. Emergency Alarms and Communications Systems (82745)
a. insoection Scooe
The inspector reviewed the following to ensure that emergency alarms were operable
and being maintained as required by TS 4.4 and 4.7 and Emergency Plan
Section 7.2(2):
- periodic functional tests of emergency alarms and communications systams,
e calibration of monitoring equipment, and
maintenance records of the alarms and equipment,
e
b. Observations and Findinas
Through a review of the documentation of calibration, maintenance, and/or periodic
testing of the emergency alarms, the inspector determined that the alarms
functioned as required. These included the criticality alarm system, the continuous
air monitor (CAM), the evacuation alarm, the Argon monitors, and the area radiatbn
monitors. It was noted that, during one annual facility evacuation drillin April 1997,
the alarm was not sufficiently loud in the UVAR reactor room to attract one's
attention immediately. To assure that the alarm was understood effectively and
quickly, the licensee had decided to install an additional alarm in the reactor room.
The inspector informed the licensee that the installation of the additional alarm in the
reactor room will be tracked as an inspector Follow up ltem (IFI) by the NRC and will
be reviewed during a subsequent inspection (IFl 50-62/98 201 01).
10 CFR 50.54(q) requires that a licensee authorized to possess and/or operate a
research reactor shall follow and maintain in effect emergency plans which meet the
requirements in Appendix E of Part 50. Section 8.4(2) of the licensee's Emergency
Plan reouires that the evacuation alarm will be tested once every six months.
_-
- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _
.
.
.
5
The inspector noted that the evacuation alarm was typically tested in the spring
during the annual evacuation drill and in the fall during the annual emergency
exercise. On occasion, the alarm was also tested along with the fire alarm. In
1996, the evacuation alarm had been tested on Januery 22 along with the fire alarm
and on April 24 during the evacuation drill. The alarm was also tested during the
annual exercise on November 19,1996. In 1997, the evc? ation alarm was tested
along with the fire alarm on January 22 and again on April 11 during the annual
evacuation drill. The alarm had not been tested in the fall of 1997 and was not
tested during the most recent emergency exercise on January 13,1998. The
licensee was informed that f ailure to test the evacuation alarm every six months was
an apparent violation (VIO) of 10 CFR 50.54(q) (VIO 50-62/98-201-02).
Following the inspection, the licensee contacted the NRC by electronic mail (e-mail)
anJ informed the inspector that an evacuation drill had been conducted anC the
alarm tested on Friday, January 30,1998,
c. Conclusions
Alarms and communication systems were being maintained as required. An Inspector
Follow up Item was established concerning the licensee's decision to install an
additional alarm in the reactor room. Also, an apparent violation was rnted for
failure to test the evacuation alarm every six months as required by the Emergency
Plan.
6. Training (82745)
a. Insoection Scone
The inspector reviewed the following to ensure that training was being completed
according to the requirements in Section 10.1 of the Emergency Plan:
Ree0 tor operator requalification training records,
e annual training given UVAR personnel, and
e emergency respond:r training records and documentation.
b. Qbservations and Findino.s
i
F.eview of the records and documentation of the annual training given,
wed that
'
emergency response personnel were receiving the training outlined in Sacuon 10.1 of
the Emergency Plan. The training included decision making, transmitting
information, accident assessment, radiological monitoring and first aid as required.
The recent on-site emergency exercise showed the effectiveness of the training,
c. Conclusions
The training provided to emergency responders by the licensee was acceptable and
complied with the requirements in the Emergency Plan.
.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ - -
.
.
.
.
6-
7. Follow up on items of Noncompilance (92701)
a. Insoection Scong
The inspector reviewed the actions taken by the licensee following identification of
previously noted Inspector Follow up Items and a Violation.
b. Observations and Findinas
(*)
IFl - 50-62/96-03-01 - Verify that the Rear: tor Safety Committen (RSC)
completes an audit of the Emergency Plan and implementing procedures during
December 1996.
During a provious inspection in November 1996, it was noted that the RSC was
scheduled to complete an audit of the emergency preparedness program during
December 1996. The inspector reviewed the results cf the audit conducted in
December 1996 and rioted that the auditors identified various findings. The
findings were subsequently addressed by the licensee in a response to the RSC
by It;tter dated May 28,1997. The audit and actions taken in response wero
l
determined to be acceptable. This IFlis considered closed.
(2)
Exercise Weakness (EW) - 50-62/96-03-02- Failure to upgrade the emergency
classification from a Notification of Unusual Event (NOUE) to a General
'
Emergency (GE) in accordance with Section 4.4 of Emergency Plan
implementing Procedure (EPIP) 1.
l
In response to this EW, the licensee submitted a letter to the NRC dated
'
February 17,1997. In the response the licensee committed to revise the EPIPs
to correct the weakness. The revision to the EPIPs was to be completed and
presented to the RSC for approval by July 1,1997.
During this inspection,it was noted that the EPIPs had not been updated. The
inspector discussed this issue with the licensee and the licensee suggested that
the EPIPs were not and probably would not be updated due to a tro.iage of
staff needed for such a project. The licensee was informed that failure to
update the EPIPs as initially indicated was an apparent deviation (DEV) to
comply with a written commitment made to the N9C (DEV 50-62/98-201-02).
This EW is considered closed but, as noted above, an apparent deviation
resulted.
(3)
IFl - 50-62/96-03-03 - Verify that corrective actions are taken to improve
performance in communications and timely updates from the incident command
post to the backup Emergency Support Center CSC).
)
l
. . - . - . - _ - _ - . .
- - . . .
-
. - - .
-.
.
..
-.
__-.-
_-_.-.-
--
- ..
.
.
.
.
7
Besides the commitment noted above concerning updatirig the EPIPs, the
lics.1see also stated that an emergency drill desktop training session would be
held to discuss the NRC inspection report documenting the Novomber 1996
inspection. During the desktop training session, " lessons learned " from the .
exercise and the report were to be reviewed as well.
During this inspection, it was noted that this desktop training session was
never hed. This item will romain open,
c. Conclusions
IFI 50-62/96-03-01 is considered closed. EW 50-62/96-03-02 will be closed but an
a
f
apparent deviation was noted. IFl 50-62/96 03-03 will remain open.
8. Exit Interview
The inspection scope and results were summarized on January 28,1998, with licensee
,
personnel. The inspector described the areas inspected and discussed in detail the
'
inspection findings-
No dissenting comments were received from the licensee. The licensee did not identify
as proprietary any of the material provided to or reviewed by the inspector,
a
,
,
i
.
i
.
_
_
_
._
__ -__________-_____ _ -
. --
=
_
.
i
PARTIAL LIST OF PERSONS CONTACTED
Licensee Emolovaes
P. Benneche, Reactor Supervisor
C. Bly, Senior Reactor Operator
B. Hosticka, Senior Reactor Operator
R. Mulder, Director, University of Virginia Reactor (UVAR) Facility
Other Oraanizations -
D. Steva, Reactor Health Physicist, Environmental Health and Safety Department
INSPECTION PROCEDURE USED
Class i Non Power Reactor Emergency Preparedness
,
l
ITEMS OPENED. CLOSED. AND DISCUSSED
Ooened
item Number
.T.vna
Descriotion and Reference
50-62/98 201-01
IFl
Follow up item on the licensee's decision to
install an additional alarm in the reactor room
(Paragraph 5.b ).'
50 62/98 201-01
Failure to test the evacuation alarm every six
months as required by the Emergency Plan
(Paragraph 5.b).
50 62/98 201-02
DEV
Failure to update the EPIPs as initially indicated in
a letter to the NRC dated February 17,1997
(Paragraph 7.b(2)).
Closed
item Number
Iygg
Descriotion and Reference
50-62/96 03-01-
lH
Verify that the Reactor Safety Committee (RSC)
performs an audit of the Emergency Plan and
implementing procedures during December 1996
(Paragraph 7.b(1)).
50 62/96 03-02
EW
Failure to upgrade the emer0ency classification
from an NOUE to a GE in accordance with
Section 4.4 of EPIP 1 (Paragraph 7.b(2)).
_ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - .
.
.
2
Discussed
item Number
.IYRA
D.g;criotion and Reference
50-62/96-03 03
IFl
Verify that corrective actions are taken to
improve performance in communications and
timely updates from the incident command post
to the backup ESC (Paragraph 7.b(3)).
CFR
Code of Federal Regulations
DEV
Deviation
Emergency Plen Implementing Procedure
Emergency Support Center
EW
Exercise Weakness
General Emergency
IFl
Mspector Follow-up Item
IP
inspection Procedure
Notification of Unusual Event
Non-Power Reactor
NRC
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Public Document Room
Reactor Safety Committee
TS
Technical Specification
University of Virginia Reactor
Violation
l
_____.J
,'
l
lI1
l
l11
lll
,
.
.
.
2
.
,
-
,
-
.
F
'^
..
O
'
l
)
.
.
.
x
p
-
l
O
a
u
_
.
<
N
M
-
1_
R
.
w
.
E
o
.
A
s
m
.
G
t
,
E
e
o
lo
r
.
r
l
t
o
o
c
e
c
r
f
A
a
h
a
r
o
g
P
e
T
r
o
t
R
t
h
c
d
r
l
.
a
m
C
a
e
e
h
e
e
0
r
s
l
u
it
c
l
1
e
E
N
.
'I
1
h
b
(
t
a
E
t
.
E
n
se
i
l
n
s
l
a
le
i
w
l
g
F
n)
E
E
S
y
I
T
T
l
inC
e
h
r
e
-
eI
v
T
A
A
pE
D
D
o
d
m
r
.
l
f
a
m
o
e
i
.r
h
o
Of
o
l
Nd
e
r
e
b
r
7
Ai
o
c
t
M
t
R
.
S
E a
o
c
t
n
a
O
M 'e e
l
h o
lu
e
eb
d
e
F
-
E
r
r u
t
Te n
e
.
hi
O
nb
o
h
Y) -
I
i
.
t
l
c
t
Rd-
Wpn
N
l
n
T e
E oo
A
F a
m
in
i
Nt
N S
E
la
r
C
c
r
t
(
a
m
E a
-
)
l
Y -
SAa
s
a
FT c
Noe
l
n
l
ANY
o
a
As
I(
t
e
t
it
a
l
e
.
s
a
n
ER n
s
s
e
u
o
o
a
s
c
S D (n
.
B
i
d
8
e
T O
.
e
o
D
d
D
a
it
i
v
d
l
C
o
YS N -
.
a
W
.
l
r
v
.
C
l
e
d
E
ia
g
o
.
N
e
a
PVY
h
n
r
C
S
O
N
N
g
t
U
L
a
r
& N
le
l
n
t
t
O
l
l
a
W YO
b
e
t
h
la
t
is
m
u
t
s
o
D
_
d
n
S
Y
n
D
le
.
s
l
t
o
L L
e
e
i
_
I
B
Y
o
p
OCM
B
p
l
p
m
o
o
t
_
D
s
u
o
1
n
.
N F E
E
D
e
C
P
d
_
_
T
T
E
R
S
o
_
E
T
r
,
e
a
r
_
P
e
id
_
I
_
I
W
l
o
s
_
I
n
c
_
CFW
M
E
t
e
e
c
't
I
E
B
V
U
E
e
d
ic
l
a
e
,
e
PP
U
E
r
o
e
e
l
S O N
S
R
l
le
e
C
s
s
,
h
N T
la
Q
e
t
v
h
t
n
t i
y
i
-
,
c
I CN
e
e
ri
2
ot
r
cI
l
L
n
u
0
7
i
AE
n
a
2
9
l
6
pS
A
i
m
C
9
e
t
e
h
r
1
r
t
R
.
sT
e
a
i
y
l
v
,
E
O
nIR
l
e
la
r
l
l
W
N
0
i
p
S
l
a
k
le
A
a
e
O
T
b
l
n
r
ic
o
n
u
.
P
E
is
i
A
i
q
m
l
0
_
K
n
i
l
li
d
o
1
t
C
ll
o
d
a
l
_
_
r
l
_
O
-
-
p
d
n
d
n
o
s
F
a
o
a
r
D
e
t
i
a
r
n
c
g
ly
o
,
R
l
a
n
n
e
t
0
d
8
ll
f
u
i
it
e
v
c
a
a:
l
3
o
F
w
ee
e
o
L
S
lo
c
r
n
5
L m
it
n
P
lo
f
h
e
f
e
o
a
t
n
t
p
e
y
U
i
A
P
F
e
t
is
N
ta
l
S
s
T
t
s
T
la
d
t
s
o
in
im
N
1
2
s
s
I
a
a
m
s
t
o
m
r
U
L
B
r
e
2
n
e
n
r
ts
r
o
it
i
b
e
r
la
it
a
S
C
h
n
m
m
d
E
e
e
e
h
y
1
U
n
e
D
r
t
t
u
n
N
m
a
1
o
u
h
O
ll
D
t
t
o
s
C
o
e
la
f
r
5
C
a
.
0
u
O
la
0
p
o
r
t
1
u
/
w
o
u
d
4
y
n
f
ge
N
it
-
O
e
7
r
it
it
c
l
it
o
n
w
R
T
2
m
.
U
l
o
8
k
c
2
a
s
o
t
r
R
m
a
a
a
n
o
lo
P
h
lla
a
E
O
a
N
'
F
m
r
b
e
-
-
M
P
r
t
l
t
n
e
cu
A
E
T
.
o
u
e
s
q
S
it
e
r
n
N
N
R
t
e
S
u
i
S
E
8
o
S
MU
r
e
c
s
e
6
.
l
e
V
s
h
E
9
p
S.
T
e
m
TA
t
p
a
t
U
S
9
R
e
T
i
s
O
T
A
I
I
o
n
O
N
I
S
T
I
N
T
o
N
t
n
EPO
S
l
F
,
t
1L
IIl
ll
lllf
l}l
l
,
-
.
,
1
fo
i
2
O
a
t
.
)
.
x
x
s
O
a
N
M
e
it
N
M
n
'
e
a
r
o
o,
A
s
la
,
la
t
g
A
s
t
v
r
P
n
o
E
e
t
ls
E
e
e
P
r
t
t
y
e
c
d
A
e
c
c
m
p
h
a
le
h
a
n
it
p
T
r
ia
r.
T
r
a
e
m
a
a
g
d
h
f
e
t
l
.
h
r
m
n
l
.
C
e
f
m
m
C
e
o
a
e
e
a
i
0
s
e
e
0
m
c
1
e
e
it
E
w
t
1
n
r
1
t
l
- l
(
ic
h
l
1
y
a
ie
l
{
h
v
E
l
d
a
t
r
t
E
it
E
E
l
t
e
ic
o
r
e
e
n
h
l
n
l
t
f
o
a
t
s
a
_
y
f
e
e
r
g
),
t
g
h
a
e
n)
2
r
e
o
n)
t
t
l
iS
?
n
l
iS
t
nC
4
nC
e
n
it
a
pE
is
o
-
eI
-
eI
v
C
m
-
pE
8
s
o
o
e
.
om
i m
n
w
l
f
o
m
l
f
r
.r
it
t
io
o
la
C
o
c
u
.r
t
v
Of
e
b
Of
o
y
l
N d
S
l
N d
d
r
t
e
e
p
e
Ain
,
1
e
t
1
n
p
f
n
Ai
a
a
E a
a
li
E a
it
m
S
t
l
r
t
d
eb
P
p
l
h o
o
a
eb
m
n
l
h o
ro
O.
t
y
A
.
t
t
e
c
c
n
e
c
inb
w
a
inb
n
O
l
e
o
e
r
i n
e
ie
e
N
i n
N
l
a
n
l
s
v
R
l
g
ia
A
F
n
e
e
A
F ac
e
N
m
g
E
(
c
(
E
e
r
h
a
ic
r
t
o
E
l
f
o
O
l
s
I
d
l
e
,
d
t
T
'
- e
an
h
7
A
=
,
9
e
t
e
U
s
2
,
t
,
n
9
n
N
e
8
e
it
,
n
2
ll
o
1
e
I
8
e
d
D
ic
y
T
s
r
d
D
a
1
e
N
l
o
o
l
lo
lu
e
le
O
.
C
l
l
a
l
r
h
n
.
C
i
y
p
e
u
C
o
.
N
t
a
o
.
V
r
J
N
g
N
J
r
.
N
g
-
f
e
O
l
d
r
o
y
w
n
t
M
n
O
l
e
b
n
n
t
n
a
o
n
R
e
t
s
o
o
D
)
e
t
_
c
e
n
s
O
m
u
_
(q
d
.
m
u
_
F
e
o
D
it
e
r
_
p
s
s
9
le
e
l
N
it
io
e
.
Y
le
e
l
4
8
o
t
t
.
R
p
o
5
e
9
p
lo
m
is
p
p
s
_
v
f
_
t
a
l
u
C
P
0
1
u
C
P
o
m
e
o
_
T
S
.
5
r
s
_
a
,
S
o
k
N
_
t
o
_
d
nll
R
w
C
n
l
3
_
_
E
l
e
1
a
,
r
F
7
A
4
iu
C
m
y
y
d
C
9
r
R
9
e
n
o
t
T
l
a
e
1
r
e
t
A
e
d
3
0
a
a
l
f
a
N
d
4
a
e
1
u
D
r
o
1
la
n
l
h
C
,
1
o
u
s
l
e
o
s
S
u
,
e
s
C
,
e
a
e
7
e
d
f
S
v
a
r
-
F
s
e
o
h
J
t
e
I
L
s
s
s
T
n
o
s
y
c
e
I
t
d
P
h
u
0
t
8
t
u
0
y
t
a
3
n
o
r
y
r
a
4
a
a
c
P
it
n
C
e
7.
d
it
e
C
u
e
o
E
r
o
m
7
e
r
t
r
R
r
t
e
b
p
e
e
m
e
9
c
v
e
e
h
t
_
e
ve
x
n
1
u
e
l
F
h
g
t
r
S
i
- :a
e
d
S
t
n
a
- a
d
o
it
is
e
r
e
in
s
e
g
n
i
A
a
s
n
e
e
n
h
y
r
s
o
r
t
t
e
v
A
r
e
h
c
d
e
O
e
l
h
n
l
V
e
l
_ ,
is
le
o
d
n
m
r
v
a
r
l
t
a
o
o
i
l
it
l
e
n
t
r
d
n
e
p
t
o
o
m
E
m
it
n
iv
I
la
1
m
o
s
y
m
n
i
t
t
x
c
m
r
l
a
c
,
y
is
D
c
u
s
e
l
t
n
r
n
o
n
.
o
e
c
r
p
n
p
la
u
a
e
a
V
n
F
r
3
t
y
g
3
s
F
e
h
P
o
r
r
l
r
t
o
P
S
n
a
n
e
e
v
m
e
it
P
S
e.
it
L
P
o
a
t
y
e
s
L
P
n
c
s
p
a
A
C
e
p
P
A
n
e
n
e
n
y
U
u
e
y
U
I
T
c
S
e
la
T
P
S
I
s
e
o
a
c
E
g
d
e
r
m
v
s
n
u
r
s
p
e
e
t
o
n
m
e
e
t
e
e
2
r
e
n
d
m
s
t
e
e
n
n
e
2
h
r
h
b
e
m
a
r
it
b
e
n
E
n
t
t
I
it
I
e
a
e
m
m
l
n
m
m
e
c
l
n
t
2
N
m
la
e
l
U
a
u
l
U
M
u
t
i
h
s
is
l
a
3
d
N
m
v
e
t
e
r
e
o
n
g
n
o
u
e
t
h
e
o
n
o
u
5
!
u
e
d
r
C
it
ir
C
T
o
r
0
u
/
r
e
t
O
1
t
d
5
y
1
c
o
.
a
u
t
d
4
y
o
n
u
d
O
e
e
4
r
l
it
O -
lu
c
7
a
c
it
7
l
e
e
7
r
r
r
n
n
r
c
a
P
d
9
a
d
.
2
i
o
2
.
U
ia
m
t
o
lu
o
v
e
U
ia
P
r
8
m
g
d
9
o
rP
8
e
N
F
m
1
s
N
m
it
e
,
n
e
.
n
y
e
.
o
u
n
s
1
F
it
t
n
q
S
o
u
l
t
q
S
it
S
ic
o
e
e
n
e
it
S
S
MU
l
e
V
E T
e
c
m
e
ly
a
n
S
MU
6
e
c
9
l
e
V
ic
u
A
e
T
i
s
O
e
a
I T
i
s
O
le
l
J
m
TA
t
p
s
f
m
TA
t
p
p
N
i
e
e
y
O
S
T
I
N
h
w
It
t
S
T
I
N
im
h
b
P
n
C
It
n
t
O
l
ll
ll
l
_
S
5
,
,l
.
_
-- _
_
,,
.
.
INSPECTION FOLLOW-UP SYSTEM (IFS)
,
SPEED CLOSEOUT / UPDATE FORM
-
l RESPONSIBLE INDIVIDUAL:
C. Bassett
5
0
-
0
0
6
2
DOCKET
NUMBERS
.
REVIEWED BY:
S. Weiss
FACILITY:
University of Virginia
,
i
__
_
CLOSEOUT /
AFFECTED UNITS
ITEM
INSPECTION ITEM
UPDATE
INSPECTION
ITEM
(1/2/3)
TYPE
NUMBER
REPORT NO.
END DATE
STATUS
1
F
I
9
6
-
0
0
3
-
0
1
9
8
-
0
0
1
1/28/98
C
'
1
E
W
9
6
-
0
0
3
-
0
2
9
8
-
0
0
1
1/28/98
C
1
1
F
i
9
6
-
0
0
3
-
0
3
9
8
-
0
0
1
1/28/08
O
_
_
_
m
e
e
e
.
_
g
a
(FOR ESCALATED ITEMS ONLY)
AFFECTED
CLOSEOUT /
UNITS
ITEM
UPDATE
INSPECTION
ITEM
l
(1/2/3)
TYPE
EA NUMBER
NOV ID NUMBER
REPORT NO.
END DATE
STATUS
-
-
-
-
-
,
l
IFSCLOSE. A96
.