ML20197H605

Insp Rept 50-062/98-202 on 981116-19.Violations Noted. Major Areas Inspected:Review of Selected Aspects of Licensee Organization,Operations & Maintenance Activities,Safegurads & Security Program & Matl Control & Accounting Program

ML20197H605
Person / Time
Site:	University of Virginia
Issue date:	12/09/1998
From:	NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned)
To:
Shared Package
ML20197H573	List: ML20197H570 ML20197H581 ML20197H605
References
50-062-98-202, 50-62-98-202, NUDOCS 9812140142
Download: ML20197H605 (20)

See also: IR 05000062/1998202

Text

.

.

U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION

Docket No: 50 62

License No: R-66

Report No: 50-62/98-202

Licensee: University of Virginia

Facility: University of Virginia Research Reactor (UVAR)

Location: Charlottesville, VA

Dates: November 16-19,1998

Inspector: C. H. Bassett, Senior Non-Power Reactor inspector  ;

i

'

Approved by: Seymour H. Weiss, Director

Non-Power Reactors and Decommissioning ,

Project Directorate  !

Division of Reactor Program Management i

i

!

!

!

,

!

!

i

9812140142 981209 l

PDR ADOCK 05000062 I

G PDR  !

t

!

!

!

'

i

!

'

-. -

.

.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

University of Virginia

Report No: 50-62/98-202

This routine, announced inspection included the review of selected aspects of the

licensee's organization, operations, and maintenance activities; review and audit and design

change functions; the operator requalification program; procedures; fuel movement; the

surveillance program; experiments; radiation controls and environmental protection;

transportation of radioactive materials; the safeguards and security program; and the

material control and accounting program.

Organization, Operations, and Maintenance Activities

e The staffing level for the facility was being maintained as required and the

individuals filling the positions met the qualifications outlined in the Technical

Specifications (TS).

e The reactor was permanently shutdown on June 30,1998, and no further reactor

operations were conducted except for surveillance activities required by the TS.

• Maintenance was being performed in accordance with license and TS requirements.

Review and Audit and Design Change Functions

e The Reactor Safety Committee (RSC) met as required by TS and performed audits of

the licensee's overall program,

e RSC audit findings were substantive and the licensee took corrective actions as

needed,

o No design changes had been made since the last inspection.

Requalification Program

. The training required by the requalification program had been completed prior to

shutdown of the reactor. Since that time the program has been revised with

emphasis placed on fuel handling operations.

Procedures

e Facility procedures were acceptable and satisfied TS requirements for being revised

by the licensee and reviewed and approved by the RSC.

s

.

.

2

Fuel Movement

e Fuel movement had been conducted following shutdown of the reactor and the fuel

had been handled, moved, and shipped as stipulated by procedure and the facility

TS.

Surveillance Program

e The licensee continued to complete the surveillances required by TS.

e Following shutdown of the reactor, various changes to the TS were submitted to

the NRC to alleviate the necessity to complete those surveillances that could no

longer be completed and/or were not needed.

Experiments

e Those reactor experiments reviewed had been approved by the RSC, were

conducted using reviewed and approved procedures, and were acceptably

documented.

Environmental Protection

e Effluent monitoring satisfied license and regulatory requirements.

Radiation Protection

e Surveys were completed and documented acceptably to permit evaluation of the

radiation hazards that might exist.

e Postings satisfied regulatory requirements.

• Personnel dosimetry was being worn as required and doses were well within the

licensee's specified procedural action levels and regulatory limits.

!

e Radiatiori monitoring equipment was being maintained and calibrated as required.  ;

i

e The Radiation Protection Program and ALARA Program satisfied regulatory

requirements.

Transportation  ;

I

e One violation was noted for failure to properly complete the shipping papers and

labels for various shipments of radioactive material as required by 10 CFR 71.5 and

49 CFR 171-189.

Safeguards and Security  !

I

l

!

l

l

- 1

.

.

3

e The NRC-approved security program at the facility was acceptably implemented.

Material Control and Accountability

• No deficiencies were identified in the licensee's Material Control and Accounting

program.

)

<

bg.

_ _ _ _ -

_ _

.

.

I

REPORT DETAILS

Summary of Plant Status

l

Following a decision by the University of Virginia to permanently shutdown the reactor and j

decommission the facility, the two-megawatt (2MW) light-water cooled, moderated, and i

shielded type research reactor ceased operations on June 30,1998, and has not been

{

operated since. Fuel was removed from the reactor core and will be shipped off site. The j

licensee applied for a Possession Only License Amendment (POLA) on September 29,  ;

1998. The licensee has also submitted proposed amendments to the facility Technical  !

Specifications to eliminate those required surveillances and other license requirements that

are no longer needed or necessary.

1. Organization, Operation, and Maintenance Activities (39745)

a. Inspection Scope

t

To verify compliance with the requirements specified in the facility Technical

Specifications (TS) 6.1 and approved procedures, the inspector reviewed:  ;

. the current staffing level at the facility,

e operations log books, and

. maintenance records.

b. Observation and Findings

The inspector noted that the licensee's 1997 Annual Report for the facility

indicated that the operations staff numbered nine people including full-time

and part-time personnel. Since that time, various staff members have been

transferred to other organizations or have retired. Currently the operations

staff consists of a Reactor Director, a Reactor Supervisor, one Senior Reactor

Operator (SRO), a Machine Shop Supervisor, and the Reactor Facility

Secretary. The Machine Shop Supervisor will retire at the end of 1998 and

the SRO is looking for other employment.

A review of the facility operations log book showed that the reactor had been

shutdown and operations stopped on June 30,1998. This was done

following a decision by University of Virginia officials to discontinue

supporting the research reactor program. All the reactor fuel was

subsequently removed from the core to storage in the reactor pool and will

be shipped off site as the shipping cask becomes available. The licensee has

continued keeping a log book for the reactor to document fuel movement and

disposition.

A review of the maintenance records for the facility showed that no

maintenance was being done for some of the equipment related to the

reactor because none was required with the reactor shutdown. Maintenance

.

_

.

'

!

i

2

was being performed as required by the TS and continued to be completed

for radiation and airborne radioactivity monitoring equipment as well.

c. Conclusions l

i

The licensee was maintaining the staffing level as required and the f

individuals filling the positions met the qualifications outlined in the TS. No  !

operations were being conducted because the reactor had been permanently  !

shutdown. Maintenance was being performed in accordance with license  :

and TS requirements,

f

!

2. Review and Audit and Design Change Functions (40745) f

I

a. Inspection Scope

To verify compliance with the requirements detailed in TS 6.2,10 CFR  !

50.59, and licensee procedures, the inspector reviewed.  ;

.

t

+ the minutes of recent Reactor Safety Committee (RSC) meetings,  !

= the results of recent RSC audits,

• the responses of the licensee to the RSC audits, and

. design changes considered and/or completed by the licensee.

b. Observations and Findings

Minutes of the RSC meetings for 1997 and 1998 to date were reviewed. It

was determined that the RSC met semi-annually as required by TS and that a

quorum was present during the meetings. The issues reviewed were

consistent with the topics required to be reviewed as outlined in TS 6.2 and

procedure changes were discussed and approved as required. It was noted

that the RSC completed audits of the overall program as stipulated by the TS

and that the findings were substantive. The licensee responded to the

findings and took corrective actions as needed.

Through discussions with licensee representatives, it was determined that no

design changes had been made since the last inspection.

c. ConcMens

The RSC met as required by TS 6.2 and performed audits of the licensee's

overall program. Audit findings were substantive and the licensee took

corrective actions as needed. No design changes had been made recently.

.

_ _.. _ _. .._ _ ._ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ , _ _ _ _ _ ._ . . _ .. _ . _.__._ _ . _ . . _ _

.--

,

- I

I

3 i

!

3. Operator Regratification Program (41745)

i

a. Inspection Scope l

l

To verify compliance with the requirements in 10 CFR 55.59 and the NRC- l

approved requalification program, the inspector reviewed the licensee's l

requalification training program and records.  !

i

b. Observations and Findings

The inspector noted that two SROs were employed at the facility. Each  !

licensed operator had a current license and physical examination.  !

in reviewing the requalification program, the inspector noted that the last i

biennial training cycle had been completed in June 1998. Since then,

requalification training had been limited to the training given to all personnel  ;

at the facility at the beginning of the school year and training concerning the i

shipment of nuclear fuel. l

l

The licensee had submitted a letter to the NRC dated August 3,1998, which l

sought approval for revision of the entire program. This was done because  !

the emphasis of the original program was reactor theory, operations  ;

procedure, and reactor control manipulations. A change was necessary i

because the emphasis was shifted from an operating reactor to fuel  !

movement and shipment. Since the licensee had applied for a POLA, there  !

was no impetus to continue the training in the area of operations and reactor l

control manipulation. By letter from the NRC to the licensee dated i

October 27,1998, the revised program was approved and was to be l

implemented immediately. <

!

c. Conclusions  !

!

,

The training required by the requalification program had been completed prior J

to shutdown of the reactor. Since that time the program has been revised  ;

with emphasis placed on fuel handling operations,

i

4. Procedures (42745) l

a. Inspection Scope

f

,

To verify compliance with the requirements in TS 6.3, the inspector l

reviewed: )

a selected operating procedures, I

'

e selected safety procedures, and

i

I

I

i

!

i

>

,

_ _ . _ . _ . _ . _ _ . . _ _ _ _ __._ . ._._.

.

!

I

4

• the process used by the licensee to revise, review, and approve all

facility procedures. j

b. Observations and Findings

The inspector discussed the various procedures used at the facility with  !'

licensee representatives. It was noted that many of the procedures were no

longer in use because the reactor was not operating. l

The inspector reviewed selected operations and safety procedures that were  ;

still being used at the facility. The procedures provided acceptable guidance

in the areas they covered and procedural changes had been reviewed and

approved by the RSC following the guidance in TS 6.3 and the licensee's  !

administrative procedures. A review of the records that the licensee had to

generate by complying with the procedures showed that implementation of

and adherence to the procedures were acceptable. l

c. Conclusions l

Facility procedures were acceptable and satisfied TS requirements for being l

revised by the licensee and reviewed and approved by the RSC.

.

L

5. Fuel Movement (60745)

'

a. Inspection Scope

To verify compliance with TS 5.3, the inspector reviewed:  ;

5

. selected fuel handling procedures,

+ operations log books, and  ;

e records of fuel movements. '

F

The inspector also interviewed licensee personnel to determine the current

status of fuel handling at the facility.

b. Observations and Findings ,

Following shutdown of the reactor in June, the licensee had removed all the

fuel from the reactor core in July. Recently, a shipment had been completed

of four control rod fuel elements. The inspector verified that the fuel l

movement and handling involved had been carried out in accordance with the l

applicable procedures and the TS.  !

i

!

.

- , - - , - -

--, ,-

.. . ~. - . - - _- . . - .__ -

.

-

I

l

! 5

c. Conclusions

Fuel movement had been conducted following shutdown of the reactor. The

fuel had been handled, moved, and shipped as stipulated by procedure and

the facility TS.

6. Surveillance (61745)

a. Inspection Scope

To determine that surveillances and Limiting Conditions for Operations

verifications were being completed as required by TS 3.0 and 4.0, the

inspector reviewed:

• selected surveillance records,

• various data sheets, and

• applicable check lists.

l b. Observations and Findings

TS 4.0 outlines various surveillances required to be completed to ensure that

the reactor is operating within specified limits and to ensure that other safety

parameters are met. As noted previously, the reactor was shutdown

June 30,1998. The inspector verified that the licensee had completed the

various surveillances as required prior to that time.

. After shutdown of the reactor, the licensee submitted a revision of the TS to

the NRC on September 29,1998, in order to relieve the reactor staff from

surveillance and other license requirements which were no longer possible or

necessary. The NRC was in the process of reviewing the submittal during l

the inspection. The licensee indicated that the required surveillances would

continue to be performed until changes to the requirements were approved. I

Some requirements that could no longer be met because the reactor is not ]

operating included measuring rod drop times, completing rod worth

measurements, and measuring the shutdown margin,

c. Conclusions

l The licensee continued to complete the various surveillances as required.

'

Following shutdown of the reactor, changes to the TS were submitted by the

!icensee for approval by the NRC to alleviate the necessity to complete those

j

surveillances that could no longer be completed and/or were not needed.

I

<

s

_ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . . _ _ -m._ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . ~ . . .

r

-

?

.

!

- I

i

6 l

t

i

. 7 Experiments (69745) )!

'

a. Inspection Scope  ;

i

-

i

-

To verify compliance with the requirements in TS 3.6 and 6.4 and related i

procedures, the inspector reviewed the licensee's program to control and l

l conduct experiments in the reactor. I

i  !

'

b. Observations and Findings

(

'

!

The inspector reviewed selected experiments that had been proposed during j

'

1997 and 1998. One such experiment was in progress during early 1998 i

- which involved Boron Neutron Capture Therapy (BNCT) using mice placed in ,

a Small Animalirradiation Neutron Tube (SAINT). After various authorized i

characterization studies were completed, a procedure for use of the l

3 equipment and a protocol for handling the mice were developed. A proposal  !

{ was made to the RSC to approve the SAINT for routine use. Following i

discussion and review of the experiment, the RSC granted approval on [

'. February 23,1998. l

c. Conclusions .

i

i

l

'

Those reactor experiments reviewed by the inspector had been approved by i

the RSC, were conducted using reviewed and approved procedures, and l

[ were acceptably documented.  !

!

2  !

8. Effluent and Environmental Monitoring (80745)

t

l

a. inspection Scope (83743) '

,

4 ,

t  ;

'

To verify compliance with the requirements of 10 CFR 20 and TS 3.4 and  ;

6.7, the inspector reviewed: '

i  !

( * the licensee's environmental monitoring program,

I

• annuai repons, .

• release records, and  !

• Munting and analysis records. l

J l

b. Observation and Findings l

'

4  :

d' i

j Gaseous releases were calculated as outlined in the licensee's approved l

l methods and acceptably documented. The releases during 1997, and to date -

in 1998, were well within the annual dose constraint of 20.1101(d) and TS l

limits. Liquid releases were approved by the Reactor Health Physicist (RHP) t

and reviewed by the campus Radiation Safety Officer (RSO). The inspector  !

reviewed the liquid release records and determined that they were properly

I

I

i

l

'

-

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

!

i

!

'

. ]

!

7  !

!

!

documented. It was also noted that the results were within the annual limits  !

and concentration constraints stipulated in TS 3.4 and in 10 CFR 20.2003  !

'

and Appendix B of Part 20.

I

c. Conclusion i

!

Effluent monitoring satisfied license and regulatory requirements.

l

9. Radiation Protection (83743)  !

a. Inspection Scope f

!

To verify compliance with 10 CFR 20 and the applicable licensee procedures, I

the inspector reviewed:

. health physics (HP) and reactor surveillance / survey records,

e radiological signs and posting,

e dosimetry records,  !

. calibration records and periodic check records for radiation monitoring  !

instruments,

e the Radiation Protection Program, and .

.. the ALARA Program. l

.;

b. Observations and Findings  ;

i

Daily, weekly, and monthly contamination and radiation surveys were l

completed by the HP staff as required by TS and licensee procedures.  ;

Results were evaluated and corrective actions taken when readings or results l

exceeded set action levels.  !

Postings at the entrances to the controlled areas and the reactor room were  ;

acceptable for the hazards present. The facility's radioactive material ]

storage areas were properly posted. No unmarked radioactive material was

noted. Copies of NRC Form-3 were posted in acceptable ereas of the facility

as were current notices to workers required by 10 CFR Part 19.

The licensee used a National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program

(NVLAP)-accredited vendor to process personnel film badges, neutron

badges, and thermoluminescent dosimetry. An examination of the records

for the past two years through the date of the inspection showed that all

exposures were well within NRC limits end licensee action levels. Most of

the records indicated no exposure above background.

Selected radiation monitoring equipment was maintained and had the

acceptable up-to-date calibration sticker attached. The calibration of portable

survey meters was performed in-house by licensee personnel. Calibration

.

, * j

__, _ . _ _ _ _ _

_ _ _ _ . _ ._

._ ~ . . - _ . - - - . _ _ .

.

.

8

frequency met procedural requirements and records were generally

maintained as required.

The licensee's Radiation Protection Program was established in the

" University of Virginia Radiation Safety Guide," dated Moy 29,1996. It had

been reviewed, approved, and signed by the current campus Radiation Safety

Officer and by the Chair of the RSC. The program included requirements that

all personnel who had unescorted access to the UVAR f acility receive training

in radiation protection, policies, procedures, requirements, and facilities.

De ALARA Program was also outlined and established in the licensee's

" Health Physics Suggested Method Manual," signed by the RSC Chair and in

the "UVA Radiation Safety Guide." The ALARA program provided guidance

for keeping doses as low as reasonably achievable and was consistent with

the guidance in 10 CFR 20.

The licensee had no Respiratory Protection Program.

c. Conclusions

Surveys were completed and documented acceptably to permit evaluation of

the radiation hazards that might exist. Postings satisfied regulatory

requirements. Personnel dosimetry was being worn as required and doses l

were well within specified procedural action levels and re0ulatory limits.

Radiation monitoring equipment was being maintained and calibrated as

required. The Radiation Protection Program and the ALARA Program

satisfied regulatory requirements.

10. Transportation '536740)

a. Inspection Scope

To verify compliance with the requirements of 10 CFR 71.5 for shipments of

licensed material, the inspector interviewed licensee personnel and reviewed

various records of shipments r radioactive material,

b. Observations and Findings

10 CFR 71.5(a) requires that a licensee, who delivers licensed material to a

carrier for transport, comply with the applicable requirements of the

regulations appropriate to the mode of transport of the Department of

Transportation (DOT) in 49 CFR Parts 171-189.

49 CFR 172.202(a)(1) requires that the proper shipping name prescribed for

the material in Column 2 of the 172.101 Table be included on the shipping

papers.

.

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

.

!

.

9

49 CFR 172.204(a) requires that a specific certification or declaration stating

that the material is offered in accordance with the regulations be included on

the shipping papers. Paragraph 172.204(c) specifies a certification

statement that may be used in place of the one required by paragraph (a) if

the materialis to be transported by air.

49 CFR 173.422(a) requires that excepted packages containing limited

quantities of radioactive material offered for shipment must be certified as

being acceptable for transportation by having a specific notice enclosed in or

on the package. I

i

10 CFR 71.12(c)(2) requires that, under the terms of the generallicense for

an NRC-approved package, a licensee shall comply with the terms and

conditions of the C :tnicate of Compliance issued for the package,

i

l Certificate of Compliance (CoC) No. 5957, Revision 24, dated March 26,

1996, requires in Condition 5.(c) that the minimum Transport Index to be

shown on the label for nuclear criticality control (when shipping intact

irradiated MTR-type fuel assemblies containing not more than 240 grams of

uranium-235 (U-235) per assembly) shall be 0.4.

f

i

Through records reviews and discussions with licensee personnel, the

inspector determined that various shipments of licensed material had been

made since the last inspection. Shipment records had been completed and

! were being maintained as required. The records showed that, in general, the

!

material had been properly described and classified, that the correct labeling

had been provided, and that the contamination and radiation levels of the

packages shipped had been recorded acceptably. However, some

discrepancies were noted on the shipping papers as follows:

(

l (1) On the shipping papers filled out by the licensee for shipments made

using Federal Express as the carrier, at least two sets of shipping

papers did not list the proper shipping name of the material being

j shipped. The material was listed as " Radioactive" and not

l " Radioactive Material, N.O.S." as required.

i

'

(2) The correct wording for the shippers' certification was not listed on

various shipments of radioactive material designated as " Radioactive

Material, N.O.S., UN 2982," when the licensee's own " shipping form"

was used. The certification statement for ground transportation was

combined with the statement of certification for air transportation.

, (3) The correct wording for the certification of excepted packages was

not listed on a notice enclosed in or on the packages for shipments of

l radioactive material designated as " Radioactive Material, Excepted

Package - Limited Quantity of Material." The statement or

ll

..

_, _ . . - , _

,-,m_- , - _ .- - ~

.,

,

10

certification enclosed in or on the packages containing a limited

quantity of material used different wording and varied from that

stipulated by 49 CFR 173.422.

(4) On Friday, November 13,1998, the licensee completed Shipment

Number R-66-981. The shipment was classified as a Highway Route

Controlled Shipment of RO, Radioactive Material Fissile, N.O.S.,

UN2918. The material shipped included four MTR-type control rod

fuel elements containing a total of 495.21 grams of uranium-235 (U-

235) consisting of rnixed fission products. The radiation level at one

meter from the shipping cask was 0.2 millirem per hour (mr/hr).

Therefore, the licensee assigned a Transport index (TI) of 0.2. The

minimum Tl of 0.4, based on criticality constraints as required by the

CoC, was not used on the 1:. bel affixed to the cask nor indicated on

the shipping papers for the shipment.

The licensee was informed that failure to properly fill out the shipping papers

and labels according to the regulations was an apparent violation of

10 CFR 71.5 and 10 CFR 71.12 (VIO 50-62/98-202-01).

c. Conclusions

One violation was noted for failure to properly complete the shipping papers

and labels for various shipments of radioactive material as required by 10

CFR 71.5,10 CFR 71,12, and 49 CFR 171-189.

11. Physical Security (81401, 81402, 81431)

a. . Inspection Scope

l

To verify compliance with the licensee's NRC-approved Physical Security

Plan (PSP) and to assure that changes, if any, to the plan had not reduced its

overall effectiveness, the inspector reviewed:

. logs, records, and reports,

. key control,

e intruder detection and physical barriers,

. access controls, and

. procedures.

b. Observations and Findings

The inspector determined that the licensee's physical protection program

conformed to NRC requirements and the licensee's PSP and implementing

procedures. It was noted that revisions to the PSP had been submitted by

the licensee through letters to the NRC dated February 22,1996,and

.

. . . _ _., . . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . . . . . _ . _ _ _ . . _ _ _ . . _ . . _ _ . _ . ~ . . __ __ __.

,

!

i

.,

,

!

11

March 19,1996. However, because of the shutdown of the reactor, these I

submittals had been withdrawn by letter dat'ed July 15,1998. l

l

c. Conclusion ]

t

'

The NRC-approved security program at the facility was acceptably

implemented. l

l

12. Material Control and Accounting (85102) .

a. Inspection Scope l

!

To verify compliance with 10 CFR 70, the inspector reviewed: j

• storage areas, l

.' procedures for tracking the quantity, identity, and location of Special l

Nuclear Material (SNM), i

a assignment of responsibilities, l

• shipment records, and j

+ associated records and reports. j

b. Observations and Findings l

Th3 design of storage areas ensured that physical and administrative control  !

of SNM would be maintained. Licensee procedures for tracking SNM were

acceptably implemented. Written statements of responsibility and authority I

were established for positions with responsibility for SNM. j

i

Material Status Reports (DOE /NRC Form 742) submitted by the licensee from  !

October 1,1996 through September 30,1998, satisfied requirements i

specified in 10 CFR 70.53. I

c. Conclusions

!

i No deficiencies were identified in the licensee's Material Control and l

Accounting program.

i

! 13. Follow-up on inspector Follow-up Items and items of Noncompliance (92701, ,

92702)

i

I

,,

a. Inspection Scope <

l'

I~ The inspector followed up on one violation, a deviation, and an Inspector

[ Follow-up ltem (IFI) identified in inspection Report No. 50-62/98-201. The

inspector reviewed the licensee's response, evaluation, and corrective

actions, as needed, to the problems or issues noted,

i:

t . , .

~

_ _ -

__.

- . - - . - - . . -. - . - - - - -=-. - - _ _-. .

.

.

12

,

b. Observations and Findings

1) IFl 50-62/98-201-01 (Closed): Follow-up on the licensee's decision to i

install an additional alarm in the reactor room. The inspector verified I

that the additional alarm had been installed in the reactor room. The  ;

work was completed on March 11,1998, the alarm was tested and *

found to be functional, and the system was placed in operation.

2) Violation 50-62/98-201-02 (Closed): Failure to test the evacuation

alarm every six months as required by the Emergency Plan. The

inspector verified that the corrective actions described in the

licensee's response letter, dated April 1,1998, had been completed, i

A make-up evacuation drill had been conducted on January 30,1998,

and the alarm tests completed. The alarm test had subsequently been

performed in March as well.

3) Deviation 50-62/98-201-03 (Closed): Failure to update the

Emergency Plan Implementing Procedures as initially indicated in a

letter to the NRC dated February 17.1997. The inspector noted that

the licensee had responded to the deviation by letter dated April 1,  !

1998. The licensee indicated that the University Administration had '

decided to discontinue operation of the reactor and therefore, revision i

of the Erner0ency Plan was unnecessary. The licensee requested that  !

the commitment made in February 1997 be set aside indicating that

the present plan continued to be fully acceptable in light of the '

planned shutdown of the reactor. The inspector conferred with NRC

management and the decision was made to set aside the commitment

based upon the current situation at the facility.

t

c. Conclusions

,

'

These items are closed.

14. Exit Meeting Summary

i

The inspection scope and results were summarized on November 19,1998, with

licensee representatives. The inspector discussed the findings for each area

reviewed.

i

l

No dissenting comments were received from the licensee. The licensee did nc'  ;

identify as proprietary any of the material provided to or reviewed by *e inspector

,

except for the Physical Security Plan.

t

i

!

l

l

l

l ..

. .- . . . . . .__ ._ _ _ .. _ . .- . . -_._.__m _ _ . . - --.-

~

,  !

-

l

!

I

PARTIAL LIST OF PERSONS CONTACTED

R. Allen, Radiation Safety Committee Chairman & Director, Environmental

l

Health and Safety (EHS) Department j

P. Benneche, Reactor Supervisor

C. Bly, Senior Reactor Operator  !

B. Hosticka, Senior Reactor Operator l

D. Hudson, Associate Vice President for Research

'l

R. Mulder, Director, University of Virginia Reactor Facility ,

R. Piccolo, Radiation Safety Officer, EHS

l

D. Steva, Reactor Health Physicist, EHS  ;

!

t

INSPECTION PROCEDURES USED

),

!

IP 39745 Non-Power Reactor Organization and Operations and Maintenance Activities i

IP 40745 Non-Power Reactor Review and Audit and Design Change Functions  !

IP 41745 Non-Power Reactor Operator Licenses, Requalification, and Medical Activities l

IP 42745 Non-Power Reactor Procedures  !

IP 60745 Non-Power Reactor Fuel Movement l

IP 61745 Non-Power Reactor Surveillance l

IP 69745 Non-Power Reactor Experiments  !

IP 80745 Class i Non-Power Reactor Effluent and Environmental Monitoring  ;

IP 81401 Plans, Procedures, and Reviews i

IP 81402 Reports of Safeguards Events i

IP 81431 Fixed Site Physical Protection of Special Nuclear Material of Low Strategic I

Significance l

lP 83743 Class i Non-Power Reactors Radiation Protection

IP 85102 Material Control and Accounting - Reactors

IP 86740 Inspection of Transportation Activities

ITEMS OPENED, CLOSED, AND DISCUSSED

Opened

item Number Type Description and Reference

50-62/98-202-01 VIO Failure to properly complete the shipping papers for

shipments of radioactive material as required by 10 CFR

71.5 and 10 CFR 71.12 (Paragraph 10.b).

- Closed

i item Number Type Description and Reference

i

I

l 50-62/98-201-01 IFl Follow-up Item on the licensee's decision to install an l

additional alarm in the reactor room.

,

, ..

__ _ _ _ _ . . _ . . . _ . _ . . . . _ . . - - _ . . ._ . _ . . _,._..__m.___ . . _ ..__ _ _ __ _ _ _ .m..

I

.

I

e

'

2

50-62/98 201-02 VIO Failure to test the evacuation alarm every six months as  !

required by the Emergency Plan. l

f

50-62/98-201-03 DEV. Failure to update the Emergency Plan implementing .  !

Procedures as initially indicated in a letter to the NRC l

dated February 17,1997.

I

!

I

LIST OF ACRONYMS USED

i

'

BNCT Boron Neutron Capture Therapy

. CFR Code of Federal Regulations  ;

CoC Certificate of Compliance l

DEV Deviation l

- EHS Environmental Health and Safety  ;

HP Health Physics ,

IFl ' inspector Follow-up item  !

M,W megawatt 3

MTR Materials Test Reactor '

No. Number .

- NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission l

- NVLAP National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program

PDR Public Document Room

POLA Possession Only License Amendment ,

PSP Physical Security Plan

]

Rev. Revision

RHP Reactor Health Physicist I

I

RQ Reportable Quantity

RSC Reactor Safety Committee

RSO Radiation Safety Officer

SAINT Small AnimalIrradiation Neutron Tube

SNM Special Nuclear Material

SRO Senior Reactor Operator

TS Technical Specifications

UVA University of Virginia

UVAR. University of Virginia Research Reactor

VIO Violation

,

p

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

e o y

FAGE _1__OF 1

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cummission INSPECTION FOLLOW-UP SYSTEM (IFS) Nuclear Reactor Regulation

POWER REACTOR, FUEL FACILITY & VENDOR DATA ENTRY FORM

OPEN NEW ITEMS ONLY - (non escalated)

f SITE NAME:University of Virginia

REPORT NO.: UNIT DOCKET NO.:

9 8 -

2 0 2 1 5 0 -

0 0 6 2 REVIEWED BY: Sv Weiss DATE:

-

2

Report Transmittal Date: Lead Responsible inspector Responsible Org. Code: ANY NEW ITEMS ?

Last Name: RITS Initials: No - Stop here

Bassett A Q U P D N D Yes - Continue

f item Seq. No.: lO 1 Item Type: l V l l l0 l Severity Level: l4 Supplement No.: l5 ,

l EA NO. -

ITEM Unit 1: Unit 2: Unit 3: (Fill in the EA NO. if opening an * eel' item. The EA NO.

STATUS: can be obtained from EICS)

O ,

TitlO: Failure to crecerle complete the shrooina oaoers for various shioments of rad mat as reauired bv 10 CFR 71.5. 71.12. and 49 CFR 171-189.

I110 Characters Max)

Inspection Procedure Number: SALP Functional Area: k Cause Code: Closeout Org. Code:

86740 PS 30 , 31 P D N D

NOV Summary / Comments: The licensee made a shipment of four MTR-type control rod fuel elements containing 495.21 grams of U-235 consisting of MFP.

The shipment was made on November 13.1998. The radiation level at one meter from the cask was 0.2 mr/hr. Therefore, the licensee assigned a Transport index

of 0.2 to the shipment. The Transport index of 0.4. based on criticality constraints and required by the CoC. was not used. Other problems were noted with other

shipments. The proper shipping name was not used on some shipping papers for shipments of Radioactive Material. N.O.S.; the correct wording for the shipper's

certification was not listed on some shipping papers: and the correct wording for the certification of excepted packages of limited quantity shipments was not used.

This is a violation of 10 CFR 71.5. 71.12 and 49 CFR 171-189.

NOTE: See back for CODES

IFsCptN A94

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

a .

INSPECTION FOLLOW-UP SYSTEM (IFS)

SPEED CLOSEOUT / UPDATE FORM

5 0 -

0 0 6 2 RESPONSIBLE INDIVIDUAL: C. B3ssett

DOCKET . REVIEWED BY: S. Weiss

NUMBERS

_

FACILITY: University of Virginia

.

CLOSEOUT /

AFFECTED UNITS ITEM INSPECTION ITEM UPDATE INSPECTION ITEM

(1/2/3) TYPE NUMBER REPORT NO. END DATE STATUS

1 1 F l 9 8 -

2 0 1 -

0 1 9 8 -

2 0 2 11/19/98 C

1 V l O 9 8 -

2 0 1 -

0 2 9 8 -

2 0 2 11/19/98 C

1 D E V 9 8 -

2 0 1 -

0 3 9 8 -

2 0 2 11/19/98 C

. . .

m h p

a m e

e e m

(FOR ESCALATED ITEMS ONLY)

AFFECTED CLOSEOUT /

UNITS ITEM UPDATE INSPECTION ITEM

(1/2/3) TYPE EA NUMBER NOV ID NUMBER REPORT NO. END DATE STATUS

F

vlO - -

,

_

VIO - -

VIO - -

.__

IFSCLOSE.A96

_ _ - - _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ -- - _ - - - - _ _ -