ML20246L757
| ML20246L757 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000113 |
| Issue date: | 05/09/1989 |
| From: | Nelson G ARIZONA, UNIV. OF, TUCSON, AZ |
| To: | Martin J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8905180398 | |
| Download: ML20246L757 (2) | |
Text
. _ _ _
e sk THE UN]VERSITY OF A 'R I Z O N A
,D6d '
' T U C S O N, ARIZON A 85721 4 Sf
. /y hW COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND MINES
~
DEPAR1 MINT of NUCLEAR AND rNERGY ENGINEERING May 9,1989 Mr. John Martin, Regional Administrator United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region V 1450 Maria Lane Walnut Creek CA 94596 License R-52 Docket 50-113 Re:
Visual inspection of control rods in University of Arizona Research Reactor
Dear Mr. Martin:
This letter is to provide further reporting regarding a situation where a required visual inspection of control rods was not completed in the time interval required by technical specifications,-tmd to provide further information after the completion of the inspection. I reportecf this situation by tdephone on April 28, 1989 to Mr. Emilio Garcia of your office.
Section 4.2.c of the Technical Specifications for this facility states that:
"The control rods shall be visually inspected for deterioration.
at intervals not to exceed two years."
On April 28, 1989 a reactor committee member discovered in his review and audit of operating records that the visual inspection of the control rods, which was done previously in January 1987, had not been performed as required by January 1989. He reported this situation to me immediately, and I cancelled further reactor operations until the inspections were completed successfully. I also telephoned your office to report the situation. It was also reported to and discussed by the reactor committee, which had a scheduled meeting the same day.
The visual inspection of the control rods was performed on May 1,1989. At that time it was determined that all of the control rods function properly, and there was no evidence of deterioration which would prevent their r >per operation. After the inspection of the control rods and reassembly of the core, drop ;mes were measured for each of the control rods. The values met the technical requirements for the drop times of the rods, and were within the range of times which have been measured for these rods annually since their installation in 1972. After review of the inspection, I authorized continued operation of the reactor.
Failure to meet this surveillance requirement was due to a failure to use the annual checklist c!fectively. The facility's daily and monthly checklkts have been very effective for maintaining all surveillance functions requiring daily or monthly frequency, as these checklists are closed out and countersigned when they are completed at the end of the day or month. The annual checklist covers a time period from July 1 until the following June 30 and is closed out by June 30. The current annual checklist was begun July 1,1988 and did contain a notation that the inspection was to be done by January 1989. However, the annual checklist had not been consulted to determine whether the inspectior, had been completed. Had the reactor committee member not discovered the omission during his review and audit of records, it might not have been noted by the operating staff l
un.il the annual calibrations and surveillance items were begun about June 1, in order to complete l
the annual checklist.
pp%M M@k3 i1 O
k
f t :g s.
Q
~
Mr. John Martin May 9,1989 page 2 In order to make certain that surveillance specified on the annual checklist are performed on a timely basis, the following modifications to facility procedures and policies have been inade:
a)
A two-year calendar has been obtained which lists the dates for scheduling the work and the deadlines for completion of all semi-annual, annual, and biennial surveillance items. Both the entries on the calendar and on the annual checklist will be signed off as each surveillance is completed. This calendar will be prominently displayed in the Reactor Control Room.
b)
Reactor committee members will review the calendar as part of their audit responsibilities. This review will include verification that all currently re4M surveillance items have been completed. A tabulation of all of the required surwillance items has also been prepared for the committee members to facilitate this audit.
c)
The checklist that lists the annual and biennial check items will be modified to include a listing of the date of the prior check of that item. Thus, a verification of time elapsed since the last check will be available from the data on a single page.
d)
The operating staff has agreed to repeat the control rod inspection in June,1990. This will bring this surveillance item into permanent synchronism with the annual calibrations and inspections which are performed in June of each year.
I believe that implementation of the above policies will assure that this inspection, and all semi-annual, annual, and biennial calibration and inspections will be completed on time in the future.
If I may provide any other information about this situation, please let me know. My telephone number is 602/621-2565.
Sincerely, LU,N// L George W. Nelson, Director Nuclear Reactor Laboratory cc:
University of Arizona reactor committee
/ nited States Nuclear Regulatory Commission U
Document Control Desk Washington DC 20555 GWN/km
~
_