IR 05000116/1992003: Difference between revisions
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (StriderTol Bot insert) |
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (StriderTol Bot change) |
||
Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
=Text= | =Text= | ||
{{#Wiki_filter:' ~ | {{#Wiki_filter:' | ||
~ | |||
~ | |||
~ | |||
' | |||
. | |||
. | |||
. | |||
. | |||
. | |||
i | i | ||
. | |||
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION | U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION | ||
==REGION III== | ==REGION III== | ||
Report No. 50-Il6/92003(DRSS) | Report No. 50-Il6/92003(DRSS) | ||
Docket No. 50-116 | Docket No. 50-116 License No. R-59 Licensee: | ||
C. R. Cox ~ | lowa State University Facility Name: UTR-10 Research Reactor Inspection At: Nuclear Engineering Laboratory, Ames, Iowa Inspection Conducted: | ||
November 17-19, 1992 Inspector: | |||
[ | |||
/M!fM C. R. Cox ~ | |||
Date Approved By: | |||
/ | |||
/,, 3. W. McCormick-Barger, ChieT Date ' | |||
f)" Emergency Preparedness and Non-Power Reactors Section Ipsoection Summary inspection on November 17-19. 1992 (Reno-t No. 50-ll6/92003(DRSSO Areas Insite.'et Reactive, announced inspection to review actions on: tha recent lic neee e.ent report concerning the November 13, 1992 stuck shim safety rod (RP e); crganization, logs, and records; review and audit functions; requal'ification training; procedures; surveillance; experiments; fuel handling activities; emergency planning;. radiation controls; radwaste management (40150);-transportation activities'(86740); and periodic and-special reports (90713). | f)" Emergency Preparedness and Non-Power Reactors Section Ipsoection Summary inspection on November 17-19. 1992 (Reno-t No. 50-ll6/92003(DRSSO Areas Insite.'et Reactive, announced inspection to review actions on: tha recent lic neee e.ent report concerning the November 13, 1992 stuck shim safety rod (RP e); crganization, logs, and records; review and audit functions; requal'ification training; procedures; surveillance; experiments; fuel handling activities; emergency planning;. radiation controls; radwaste management (40150);-transportation activities'(86740); and periodic and-special reports (90713). | ||
Results: Of the 12 areas inspected, no violations or concerns were identified, The overall program remained good. The conversion to LEU-and the disassembly of the HEU fuel for shipment were two complex evolutions that were very well handled through extensive preplanning and training. | Results: Of the 12 areas inspected, no violations or concerns were identified, The overall program remained good. | ||
The conversion to LEU-and the disassembly of the HEU fuel for shipment were two complex evolutions that were very well handled through extensive preplanning and training. | |||
E i | E i | ||
l l | l l | ||
L l | L 9212220091 921208 l | ||
PDR ADOCK 05000116 O | |||
PDR | |||
_ | _ | ||
_ | |||
. | |||
pe | |||
- - - | |||
. | |||
. | |||
. | |||
. | |||
. | |||
. | |||
* | |||
, | |||
-. | |||
DLTh1LS 1. | |||
Persons Contacted Iowa State University | |||
*J. Adams, Reactor Manager | |||
*Dr. D. B. Bullen, Professor | |||
*Dr. R. A. Danofsky, facility Director | |||
*E. Sobotka, University Radiation Safety Office | |||
* Denotes those attending the exit meeting on [[Exit meeting date::November 19, 1992]]. | |||
2. | |||
General (40750) | |||
, | |||
This inspection, which began on November 17, 1992, was conducted to examine the research reactor program at Iowa State University. The facility was toured shortly after arrival. | |||
The general housekeeping of-the facility was good. Operations were primarily for student laboratory- | |||
, | |||
classes and research activities. The licensee converted to low enriched uranium (LEU) fuel in 1991. | |||
No violations or deviations were identified. | |||
3. | |||
License Event Reports (927001 (00en) LER 92-Oli Stuck Shim Safety Rod. | |||
. | |||
On November 13, 1992, the reactor was operated for a flu: mapping experiment. When the senior reactor operator scrammed the reactor as part of the experiment, the operator noticed that the shim safety rod has failed to insert and was stuckTat the 33% out position. | |||
The other two safety rods inserted and were able to bring the reactor subcritical. | |||
classes and research activities. The licensee converted to low enriched uranium (LEU) fuel in | The shim rod later inserted on-its own accord. | ||
On November 13, 1992, the reactor was operated for a flu: mapping experiment. When the senior reactor operator scrammed the reactor as part of the experiment, the operator noticed that the shim safety rod has failed to insert and was stuckTat the 33% out position. The other two safety rods inserted and were able to bring the reactor | |||
suspected but visual inspections of the rod drive mechanisms and rods could not determine a cause. After re-assembling. the rods,- i od drop times were measured and determined to meet the technical. specifications and the reactor was returned to | - | ||
, | A review of records indicated that two similar events occurred. One, in 1980, involved the same shim safety rod while the other event, in 1982, involved a second safety rod. | ||
In both cases' mechanical binding was _ | |||
' | |||
suspected but visual inspections of the rod drive mechanisms and rods could not determine a cause. After re-assembling. the rods,- i od drop times were measured and determined to meet the technical. specifications and the reactor was returned to service. | |||
For the event on November 13, 1992, a standing order by'the Reactor Manager was inserted into the reactor log book-ordering no further reactor operations until the cause or potential cause had been determined and. assessed, and all appropriate testing had'been performed | |||
, | |||
and reviewed with the NRC. | |||
o This item remains open. | o This item remains open. | ||
Line 68: | Line 116: | ||
I | I | ||
' | |||
. | |||
. | |||
- | |||
.- | |||
. | |||
_ | |||
. | |||
. | |||
. -. | |||
-. | |||
_7-. | _7-. | ||
. | |||
. | |||
. | |||
The UTR-10 organization had several major changes since the previous inspection. The Reactor Manager retired and the Reactor Supervisor was promoted to become the new Reactor Manager. . The licensee was not currently seeking to fill the vacant Reactor Supervisor position. The Radiation Safety Officer (RS0) accepted a position at another university and the previous RSO was acting as the RSO until a new RSO could be hired. Continued university support for the facility was demonstrated by the hiring of Dr. Bullen in anticipation of the current Facility Director's retirement in 1993. At that time, Dr. Bullen would become the new Facility Director after some amount of turnover from the retiring Facility | 4. | ||
the Reactor Manager and a student, with an additional SR0 candidate and two reactor operator (RO) candidates recently completing an NRC examination. The results of the examination had not been received at the time of the | |||
The licensee's Reactor Use Committee (RUC) performed the function of reviewing the reactor related issues. The RUC reported items of interest to the campus Radiation Safety Committee (RSC). The RUC met more frequently than the semi-annual basis required by the technical specifications. The inspector reviewed the RUC meeting minutes for 1990 through 1992. The meeting minutes were of good quality and provided a - | Oraanization. Loos. and Recqrds (40750) | ||
clear record of review and approval of reactor | The UTR-10 organization had several major changes since the previous inspection. The Reactor Manager retired and the Reactor Supervisor was promoted to become the new Reactor Manager.. The licensee was not currently seeking to fill the vacant Reactor Supervisor position. The Radiation Safety Officer (RS0) accepted a position at another university and the previous RSO was acting as the RSO until a new RSO could be hired. | ||
Continued university support for the facility was demonstrated by the hiring of Dr. Bullen in anticipation of the current Facility Director's retirement in 1993. At that time, Dr. Bullen would become the new Facility Director after some amount of turnover from the retiring Facility Director. | |||
The operating staff consisted of two senior reactor operators (SR0s), | |||
- | |||
the Reactor Manager and a student, with an additional SR0 candidate and two reactor operator (RO) candidates recently completing an NRC examination. The results of the examination had not been received at the time of the inspection. | |||
The inspector reviewed selected reactor operator logs for 1990 through November 1992 and did not identify any concerns. | |||
The licensee records were well-maintained. | |||
No violations or deviations were identified. | |||
5. | |||
Reviews and Audits (40750) | |||
The licensee's Reactor Use Committee (RUC) performed the function of reviewing the reactor related issues. The RUC reported items of interest to the campus Radiation Safety Committee (RSC). The RUC met more frequently than the semi-annual basis required by the technical specifications. The inspector reviewed the RUC meeting minutes for 1990 through 1992. The meeting minutes were of good quality and provided a | |||
- | |||
clear record of review and approval of reactor activities. | |||
The conversion to LEU fuel and the subsequent disassembly of the HEU fuel in preparation for shipment were reviewed by the inspector. The RUC review of these evolutions were thorough and well dacumented. | |||
The annual audit for 1991 was reviewed by the inspector. | |||
. | The audit report was very thorough and detailed. | ||
, Procedures (40750) | |||
The inspector determined that the required procedures were available to the operators and the contents of selected procedures were found | Items of concern were addressed by the Reactor Manager and reported to the RUC. | ||
The l'censee had a manual system for scheduling required surveillances but was in the process of developing a computerized data base _ | |||
No violations or deviations were identified. | |||
6. | |||
Reaualification Trainina (40750) | |||
e The inspector reviewed procedures, logs, and training records; and interviewed personnel to verify that the requalification training program was being carried out in conformance with the facility's approved plan and NRC regulations. | |||
No violations or deviations were identified. | |||
L_ _ _ __._. | |||
- | |||
. | |||
;1 | |||
. | |||
. | |||
. | |||
. | |||
, | |||
7. | |||
Procedures (40750) | |||
The inspector determined that the required procedures were available to the operators and the contents of selected procedures were found adequate. | |||
Procedure changes were reviewed and approved by the RUC. | |||
No violations or deviations were identified. | |||
8. | |||
Surveillance (40750) | |||
The l'censee had a manual system for scheduling required surveillances but was in the process of developing a computerized data base _ system. | |||
Select 3ve records were reviewed by the inspector. | |||
Several surveillance frequencies were exceeded due to the HEU-LEU conversion but these were recognized by the licensee and performed as soon as possible after the conversion and before_ full operations were allowed. | |||
A discoloration of the LEU fuel was noted during the early phases of the fuel conversion. | |||
After a careful and thorough review of the problem, it was determined that the discoloration did not threaten the fuel integrity. | |||
However, the licensee took a cautious approach to the problem and developed an increased surveillance prograni to monitor the discoloration to determine if any !breat would develop. While the amount of discoloratinn had increased, no clad degradation had developed. | |||
The licensee plans to continue the increased surveillance program. | |||
No violations or deviations were identified. | |||
9. | |||
Experiments (40750) | |||
The RUC reviewed and approved all nonroutine experiments. Only a few experiments had been submitted to the RUC for review and approval since the previous inspection. _ The inspector reviewed the flux mapping | The RUC reviewed and approved all nonroutine experiments. Only a few experiments had been submitted to the RUC for review and approval since the previous inspection. _ The inspector reviewed the flux mapping | ||
. | |||
experiment and an experiment that was used to study.the nitride formation in titanium based alloys. The experiments' documentation was very good and the RUC reviews | experiment and an experiment that was used to study.the nitride formation in titanium based alloys. The experiments' documentation was very good and the RUC reviews appropriate. | ||
The inspector determined by records review and discussions with personnel that fuel handling operations were carried out in conformance to | |||
g | No violations or deviations were identified._ | ||
} , | 11. | ||
The licensee emergency procedures and training program remained | Fuel Handlina (40750) | ||
Exposure rates for the facility personnel remained extremely low for 1990 through 1992. Dose rate and contamination surveys had-been conducted as required with no problems noted. Areas were properly posted. Instruments were properly | The inspector determined by records review and discussions with personnel that fuel handling operations were carried out in conformance to procedures. | ||
Higher than normal exposure rates were noted for the reactor staff during May 1991. That was due to the disassembly of the HUE fuel elements and re-painting the reactor to preclude old paint peeling off and becoming a maintenance problem. While the doses were higher than .; | |||
normal, the degree of pre-planning was directly responsible for limiting i those doses and for evenly distributing those doses among the | The licensee demonstrated-very good planning and training for the disassembly of the HEU fuel elements in preparation for shipment. | ||
Radwaste management essentially remained as described in Inspection Report No. 50-116/ | |||
No violations or deviations were' identified. | |||
The inspector reviewed the 1990-91 annual report and determined that the report was submitted in a timely manner and contained the information required by Technical Speci. | |||
The inspector met with' licensee representatives denoted in Paragraph I at the conclusion of the inspection on November 19, 1992. The inspector-summarized the scope and results of the inspection and discussed the likely content of this inspection report. The licensee acknowledged the information and did not indicate that any of the information disclosed during the inspection could be considered proprietary in | - - _ _ _ _ _ _ | ||
* | |||
g | |||
}M. | |||
, | |||
12. | |||
Emeraency Plannino (40750) | |||
The licensee emergency procedures and training program remained good. | |||
The annual drill was conducted and well documented. The emergency plan had recently been updated and approved. | |||
No violations or deviations were identified. | |||
13. | |||
Radiation Control (40750) | |||
Exposure rates for the facility personnel remained extremely low for 1990 through 1992. | |||
Dose rate and contamination surveys had-been conducted as required with no problems noted. Areas were properly posted. | |||
Instruments were properly calibrated. | |||
.;~ | |||
Higher than normal exposure rates were noted for the reactor staff during May 1991. | |||
That was due to the disassembly of the HUE fuel elements and re-painting the reactor to preclude old paint peeling off and becoming a maintenance problem. While the doses were higher than | |||
.; | |||
normal, the degree of pre-planning was directly responsible for limiting i | |||
those doses and for evenly distributing those doses among the staff. | |||
No violations or deviations were identified. | |||
14. | |||
Radwaste Manaaement (40750) | |||
Radwaste management essentially remained as described in Inspection Report No. 50-116/90001. | |||
No violations or deviations were identified. | |||
15. | |||
Transoortation Activities (86740) | |||
-Material irradiated in the reactor was transferred to the University's broad scope license. | |||
No violatious or deviations were identified. | |||
16. | |||
Review of Periodic and Soecial Reports (90713) | |||
The inspector reviewed the 1990-91 annual report and determined that the report was submitted in a timely manner and contained the information required by Technical Speci.fications. | |||
No violations or deviations were identified. | |||
17. | |||
Exit Interview (30703)- | |||
, | |||
The inspector met with' licensee representatives denoted in Paragraph I at the conclusion of the inspection on November 19, 1992. The inspector-summarized the scope and results of the inspection and discussed the likely content of this inspection report. The licensee acknowledged the information and did not indicate that any of the information disclosed during the inspection could be considered proprietary in nature. | |||
4 l | |||
( | |||
_ _ - - _ - - _ _ - | |||
}} | }} |
Latest revision as of 20:15, 12 December 2024
ML20126B450 | |
Person / Time | |
---|---|
Site: | University of Iowa |
Issue date: | 12/08/1992 |
From: | Cox C, Mccormickbarge NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
To: | |
Shared Package | |
ML20126B425 | List: |
References | |
50-116-92-03, 50-116-92-3, NUDOCS 9212220091 | |
Download: ML20126B450 (5) | |
Text
'
~
~
~
'
.
.
.
.
.
i
.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION III
Report No. 50-Il6/92003(DRSS)
Docket No. 50-116 License No. R-59 Licensee:
lowa State University Facility Name: UTR-10 Research Reactor Inspection At: Nuclear Engineering Laboratory, Ames, Iowa Inspection Conducted:
November 17-19, 1992 Inspector:
[
/M!fM C. R. Cox ~
Date Approved By:
/
/,, 3. W. McCormick-Barger, ChieT Date '
f)" Emergency Preparedness and Non-Power Reactors Section Ipsoection Summary inspection on November 17-19. 1992 (Reno-t No. 50-ll6/92003(DRSSO Areas Insite.'et Reactive, announced inspection to review actions on: tha recent lic neee e.ent report concerning the November 13, 1992 stuck shim safety rod (RP e); crganization, logs, and records; review and audit functions; requal'ification training; procedures; surveillance; experiments; fuel handling activities; emergency planning;. radiation controls; radwaste management (40150);-transportation activities'(86740); and periodic and-special reports (90713).
Results: Of the 12 areas inspected, no violations or concerns were identified, The overall program remained good.
The conversion to LEU-and the disassembly of the HEU fuel for shipment were two complex evolutions that were very well handled through extensive preplanning and training.
E i
l l
L 9212220091 921208 l
PDR ADOCK 05000116 O
_
_
.
pe
- - -
.
.
.
.
.
.
,
-.
DLTh1LS 1.
Persons Contacted Iowa State University
- J. Adams, Reactor Manager
- Dr. D. B. Bullen, Professor
- Dr. R. A. Danofsky, facility Director
- E. Sobotka, University Radiation Safety Office
- Denotes those attending the exit meeting on November 19, 1992.
2.
General (40750)
,
This inspection, which began on November 17, 1992, was conducted to examine the research reactor program at Iowa State University. The facility was toured shortly after arrival.
The general housekeeping of-the facility was good. Operations were primarily for student laboratory-
,
classes and research activities. The licensee converted to low enriched uranium (LEU) fuel in 1991.
No violations or deviations were identified.
3.
License Event Reports (927001 (00en) LER 92-Oli Stuck Shim Safety Rod.
.
On November 13, 1992, the reactor was operated for a flu: mapping experiment. When the senior reactor operator scrammed the reactor as part of the experiment, the operator noticed that the shim safety rod has failed to insert and was stuckTat the 33% out position.
The other two safety rods inserted and were able to bring the reactor subcritical.
The shim rod later inserted on-its own accord.
-
A review of records indicated that two similar events occurred. One, in 1980, involved the same shim safety rod while the other event, in 1982, involved a second safety rod.
In both cases' mechanical binding was _
'
suspected but visual inspections of the rod drive mechanisms and rods could not determine a cause. After re-assembling. the rods,- i od drop times were measured and determined to meet the technical. specifications and the reactor was returned to service.
For the event on November 13, 1992, a standing order by'the Reactor Manager was inserted into the reactor log book-ordering no further reactor operations until the cause or potential cause had been determined and. assessed, and all appropriate testing had'been performed
,
and reviewed with the NRC.
o This item remains open.
I
'
.
.
-
.-
.
_
.
.
. -.
-.
_7-.
.
.
.
4.
Oraanization. Loos. and Recqrds (40750)
The UTR-10 organization had several major changes since the previous inspection. The Reactor Manager retired and the Reactor Supervisor was promoted to become the new Reactor Manager.. The licensee was not currently seeking to fill the vacant Reactor Supervisor position. The Radiation Safety Officer (RS0) accepted a position at another university and the previous RSO was acting as the RSO until a new RSO could be hired.
Continued university support for the facility was demonstrated by the hiring of Dr. Bullen in anticipation of the current Facility Director's retirement in 1993. At that time, Dr. Bullen would become the new Facility Director after some amount of turnover from the retiring Facility Director.
The operating staff consisted of two senior reactor operators (SR0s),
-
the Reactor Manager and a student, with an additional SR0 candidate and two reactor operator (RO) candidates recently completing an NRC examination. The results of the examination had not been received at the time of the inspection.
The inspector reviewed selected reactor operator logs for 1990 through November 1992 and did not identify any concerns.
The licensee records were well-maintained.
No violations or deviations were identified.
5.
Reviews and Audits (40750)
The licensee's Reactor Use Committee (RUC) performed the function of reviewing the reactor related issues. The RUC reported items of interest to the campus Radiation Safety Committee (RSC). The RUC met more frequently than the semi-annual basis required by the technical specifications. The inspector reviewed the RUC meeting minutes for 1990 through 1992. The meeting minutes were of good quality and provided a
-
clear record of review and approval of reactor activities.
The conversion to LEU fuel and the subsequent disassembly of the HEU fuel in preparation for shipment were reviewed by the inspector. The RUC review of these evolutions were thorough and well dacumented.
The annual audit for 1991 was reviewed by the inspector.
The audit report was very thorough and detailed.
Items of concern were addressed by the Reactor Manager and reported to the RUC.
No violations or deviations were identified.
6.
Reaualification Trainina (40750)
e The inspector reviewed procedures, logs, and training records; and interviewed personnel to verify that the requalification training program was being carried out in conformance with the facility's approved plan and NRC regulations.
No violations or deviations were identified.
L_ _ _ __._.
-
.
- 1
.
.
.
.
,
7.
Procedures (40750)
The inspector determined that the required procedures were available to the operators and the contents of selected procedures were found adequate.
Procedure changes were reviewed and approved by the RUC.
No violations or deviations were identified.
8.
Surveillance (40750)
The l'censee had a manual system for scheduling required surveillances but was in the process of developing a computerized data base _ system.
Select 3ve records were reviewed by the inspector.
Several surveillance frequencies were exceeded due to the HEU-LEU conversion but these were recognized by the licensee and performed as soon as possible after the conversion and before_ full operations were allowed.
A discoloration of the LEU fuel was noted during the early phases of the fuel conversion.
After a careful and thorough review of the problem, it was determined that the discoloration did not threaten the fuel integrity.
However, the licensee took a cautious approach to the problem and developed an increased surveillance prograni to monitor the discoloration to determine if any !breat would develop. While the amount of discoloratinn had increased, no clad degradation had developed.
The licensee plans to continue the increased surveillance program.
No violations or deviations were identified.
9.
Experiments (40750)
The RUC reviewed and approved all nonroutine experiments. Only a few experiments had been submitted to the RUC for review and approval since the previous inspection. _ The inspector reviewed the flux mapping
.
experiment and an experiment that was used to study.the nitride formation in titanium based alloys. The experiments' documentation was very good and the RUC reviews appropriate.
No violations or deviations were identified._
11.
Fuel Handlina (40750)
The inspector determined by records review and discussions with personnel that fuel handling operations were carried out in conformance to procedures.
The licensee demonstrated-very good planning and training for the disassembly of the HEU fuel elements in preparation for shipment.
No violations or deviations were' identified.
- - _ _ _ _ _ _
g
}M.
,
12.
Emeraency Plannino (40750)
The licensee emergency procedures and training program remained good.
The annual drill was conducted and well documented. The emergency plan had recently been updated and approved.
No violations or deviations were identified.
13.
Radiation Control (40750)
Exposure rates for the facility personnel remained extremely low for 1990 through 1992.
Dose rate and contamination surveys had-been conducted as required with no problems noted. Areas were properly posted.
Instruments were properly calibrated.
.;~
Higher than normal exposure rates were noted for the reactor staff during May 1991.
That was due to the disassembly of the HUE fuel elements and re-painting the reactor to preclude old paint peeling off and becoming a maintenance problem. While the doses were higher than
.;
normal, the degree of pre-planning was directly responsible for limiting i
those doses and for evenly distributing those doses among the staff.
No violations or deviations were identified.
14.
Radwaste Manaaement (40750)
Radwaste management essentially remained as described in Inspection Report No. 50-116/90001.
No violations or deviations were identified.
15.
Transoortation Activities (86740)
-Material irradiated in the reactor was transferred to the University's broad scope license.
No violatious or deviations were identified.
16.
Review of Periodic and Soecial Reports (90713)
The inspector reviewed the 1990-91 annual report and determined that the report was submitted in a timely manner and contained the information required by Technical Speci.fications.
No violations or deviations were identified.
17.
Exit Interview (30703)-
,
The inspector met with' licensee representatives denoted in Paragraph I at the conclusion of the inspection on November 19, 1992. The inspector-summarized the scope and results of the inspection and discussed the likely content of this inspection report. The licensee acknowledged the information and did not indicate that any of the information disclosed during the inspection could be considered proprietary in nature.
4 l
(
_ _ - - _ - - _ _ -