ML20197H605
| ML20197H605 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | University of Virginia |
| Issue date: | 12/09/1998 |
| From: | NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20197H573 | List: |
| 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
ADOCK 05000062
I
G
!
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
The Reactor Safety Committee (RSC) met as required by TS and performed audits of
e
the licensee's overall program,
RSC audit findings were substantive and the licensee took corrective actions as
e
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
Facility procedures were acceptable and satisfied TS requirements for being revised
e
by the licensee and reviewed and approved by the RSC.
s
.
.
2
Fuel Movement
Fuel movement had been conducted following shutdown of the reactor and the fuel
e
had been handled, moved, and shipped as stipulated by procedure and the facility
TS.
Surveillance Program
The licensee continued to complete the surveillances required by TS.
e
Following shutdown of the reactor, various changes to the TS were submitted to
e
the NRC to alleviate the necessity to complete those surveillances that could no
longer be completed and/or were not needed.
Experiments
Those reactor experiments reviewed had been approved by the RSC, were
e
conducted using reviewed and approved procedures, and were acceptably
documented.
Environmental Protection
Effluent monitoring satisfied license and regulatory requirements.
e
Radiation Protection
Surveys were completed and documented acceptably to permit evaluation of the
e
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.
Radiatiori monitoring equipment was being maintained and calibrated as required.
e
The Radiation Protection Program and ALARA Program satisfied regulatory
e
requirements.
Transportation
One violation was noted for failure to properly complete the shipping papers and
e
labels for various shipments of radioactive material as required by 10 CFR 71.5 and
49 CFR 171-189.
Safeguards and Security
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.
_
_
_
_
-
_
_
.
.
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,
.
operations log books, and
e
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
implemented immediately.
<
!
c.
Conclusions
!
!
J
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,
i
4.
Procedures (42745)
a.
Inspection Scope
f
,
To verify compliance with the requirements in TS 6.3, the inspector
l
reviewed:
)
selected operating procedures,
a
'
selected safety procedures, and
e
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
Facility procedures were acceptable and satisfied TS requirements for being
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
+
records of fuel movements.
'
e
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
!
.
- , - - ,
-
r
-
--, ,-
..
.
~.
-
. - -
_-
.
.
-
.__
-
.
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
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
surveillances that could no longer be completed and/or were not needed.
j
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
.
l
i
i
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
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,
annuai repons,
.
I
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
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,
.
radiological signs and posting,
e
dosimetry records,
!
e
calibration records and periodic check records for radiation monitoring
!
.
instruments,
the Radiation Protection Program, and
.
e
. .
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
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
Through records reviews and discussions with licensee personnel, the
i
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
ll
Package - Limited Quantity of Material." The statement or
..
_,
_ . . -
,
_
,-,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,
.
intruder detection and physical barriers,
e
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
assignment of responsibilities,
l
a
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
I
acceptably implemented. Written statements of responsibility and authority
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
_ _ . . - --.-
~
!
,
-
!
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
)
,
!
Non-Power Reactor Organization and Operations and Maintenance Activities
i
Non-Power Reactor Review and Audit and Design Change Functions
!
Non-Power Reactor Operator Licenses, Requalification, and Medical Activities
l
Non-Power Reactor Procedures
!
Non-Power Reactor Fuel Movement
Non-Power Reactor Surveillance
l
Non-Power Reactor Experiments
!
Class i Non-Power Reactor Effluent and Environmental Monitoring
Plans, Procedures, and Reviews
i
Reports of Safeguards Events
i
Fixed Site Physical Protection of Special Nuclear Material of Low Strategic
Significance
lP 83743
Class i Non-Power Reactors Radiation Protection
Material Control and Accounting - Reactors
Inspection of Transportation Activities
ITEMS OPENED, CLOSED, AND DISCUSSED
Opened
item Number
Type
Description and Reference
50-62/98-202-01
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
additional alarm in the reactor room.
,
,
..
__ _
_
_ _ . . _ . . . _ . _ . . . . _ . . - - _ . .
._
. _ . .
_,._..__m.___
. . _ ..__ _ _ __ _ _ _
.m..
I
.
I
e
2
'
50-62/98 201-02
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
Certificate of Compliance
l
DEV
Deviation
l
- EHS
Environmental Health and Safety
Health Physics
,
!
' nspector Follow-up item
IFl
i
M,W
megawatt
3
Materials Test Reactor
'
No.
Number
.
- NRC
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
l
- NVLAP
National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program
Public Document Room
POLA
Possession Only License Amendment
,
Physical Security Plan
]
Rev.
Revision
RHP
Reactor Health Physicist
I
Reportable Quantity
Reactor Safety Committee
Radiation Safety Officer
SAINT
Small AnimalIrradiation Neutron Tube
Senior Reactor Operator
TS
Technical Specifications
UVA
University of Virginia
UVAR.
University of Virginia Research Reactor
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
Yes - Continue
Bassett
A
Q
U
P
D
N
D
Item Type: l V l l l0 l Severity Level: l4 Supplement No.: l5
l
f item Seq. No.: lO
1
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
NUMBERS
.
REVIEWED BY:
S. Weiss
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
-
-
,
-
-
_
-
-
.__
IFSCLOSE.A96
- -
-
-
-
--
-
- - - -
-