ML20129D906
| ML20129D906 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | University of Wisconsin |
| Issue date: | 09/23/1996 |
| From: | NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20129D890 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-156-96-01, 50-156-96-1, NUDOCS 9609300223 | |
| Download: ML20129D906 (20) | |
See also: IR 05000156/1996001
Text
I
,. .
.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION III
Docket No: 50-156
l License No: R-74
l Report No: 50-156/96001(DNHS)
Licensee: University of Wisconsin
Facility Name: University of Wisconsin Nuclear Reactor
Location: Madison, Wisconsin
Dates: August 19-23, 1996
Inspectors: T. D. Reidinger
T. M. Burdick
R. Krsek
Approved by: Gary L. Shear, Chief
Fuel Cycle Branch
l
?
.
J
9609300223 960923
PDR ADOCK 05000156
i , .
.G. PDR _
.. .- - -
4
.
f
!
Executive Summary l
University of Wisconsin Nuclear Reactor )
Report No. 50-156/96001(DNMS)
J
This routine, announced inspection included aspects of organization; ;
operations and maintenance; procedures; requalification training;
surveillance; experiments; radiation controls and environmental protection;
' design change; audit and review; emergency preparedness; fuel handling
activities (IP 40750); transportation activities (86740); periodic and special
reports (IP 90713); and one inspectors identified followup item 50-156/94001-
01 (IP 92701).
Oraanization (IP 40750)
e The organizational structure and assignment of responsibilities were as
specified in Technical Specifications (TS). (Section 1.0)
Operations and Maintenance (IP 40750)
e~ The reactor was operated and maintained in accordance with the reactor's
license conditions and T5 requirements. The licensee's logs and records
satisfactorily documented reactor operations and maintenance activities.
(Section 2.0)
Procedures (IP 40750)
e The licensee had &pproved procedures to sufficieatly conduct reactor
operations, maintenance, experiments, surveillance testing and
instrument calibrations in compliance with TS requirements.
(Section 3.0)
Licensed Operator Reaualification (IP 40750)
e A satisfactory training program was being conducted in accordance with
the NRC' approved program. Adequate training records were being
maintained. (Section 4.0)
Surveillances (IP 40750)
e All reactor surveillance tests had been completed and documented at the
required frequencies, and the surveillance test results met TS
requirements. Ventilation flow tests for the reactor fume hoods were
not scheduled or conducted by the University Safety Office for several
years because of inadequate test schedules. Initial flow test records
were unavailable for review. (IFI 50-156/96001-03(DNMS)) (Section 5.0)
2
_
-- - - - - - = . . - - . . - - . - . . . - . _ -
. .,
.
.. ,
,
,
Experiments (IP 40750)
'
e All reactor experiments were conducted in accordance with properly
reviewed and approved procedures and satisfactorily documented in the !
reactor operations log. (Section 6.0)
Radiation Control (IP 40750)
e Confusion and disagreements had existed between the reactor staff and
the campus radiation safety staff since 1992 regarding responsibility
for the reactor radiation safety program. The Radiation Safety Officer
(RS0) maintained that his office had no reactor health physics
responsibilities except as providing either courtesy T.S. audits or some l
health physics (HP) service on a case by case request from the reactor !
laboratory. The Reactor Director (RD) maintained that the campus RSO
always had overall health physics oversight responsibility at the I
reactor. At the exit meeting, the licensee appointed the RSO as having !
the oversight responsibility for the radiation protection program at the i
reactor laboratory.
Environmental Protection (IP 40750) l
1
e Airborne and liquid effluent releases were well within the regulatory i
limits. The licensee installed a filtered liquid waste system to comply ;
i with regulations for liquid releases discharged to the sewer system.
(Section 8.0)
{ Audits and Reviews (IP 40750)
, e. The University Health Physicist (UHP) failed to conduct monthly HP
1 inspections of the reactor laboratory as required by TS.
(Vio. No. 50-156/96001-01(DNMS)) (Section 9.0)
e The annual radiation protection audits of the reactor laboratory were
not detailed or technically comprehensive partly due to the lack of
ownership of the radiation protection program at the reactor laboratory.
(IFI No. 50-156/96001-02(DNHS)) (Section 9.0)
,
Emeroency Preparedness (IP 40750)
e Emergency Plan exercises and training were adequate to ensure public
safety. The inspectors observed the licensee effectively implement
'
their emergency plan and procedures for a public demonstration.
(Section 10.0) ;
i
l
3
-. - _.
.
.
.
Fuel Handlina (IP 40750)
e Procedures for fuel handling were adequate for reactor operations.
(Section 11.0)
Periodic and Special Reports (IP 90713)
l
l
l e P.eq!iired reports had been submitted to the NRC in accordance with TS
requirements although the most significant radiation dose (105 millirem)
for the 1995-1996 reporting period was not included due to oversight.
(Section 12.0)
Transoortation (IP 86740)
e The transfer of irradiated material from the reactor to the broadscope
license was conducted per procedure. (Section 13.0)
4
I
. _ _ -. _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _
.
!
'
.
DETAILS
1.0 Organizatho
a. Inspection ScoDe (IP 40750)
The inspectors reviewed Technical Specifications (TS) and the
Safety Analysis Report (SAR) related to organization and staffing,
b. Observations and Findinas
The inspectors determined that the organizational structure and
assignment of responsibilities were as specified in TS 6. The
membership of the Reactor Safety Committee (RSC) was in accordance
with TS and the SAR.
Through log reviews, the minimum staffing requirements were
verified to have been met during reactor operations and fuel
hand, ling or refueling operations. Selected reactor operator logs
from May 1994 through July 1996 were reviewed with no concerns
identified. The operator logs were well maintained. The l
operating cycle reports accurately used data from the operator
logs to report the number of unscheduled shutdowns. The operators
appeared proficient, demonstrated good procedural compliance, and
made appropriate log entries for the observed evolutions, i.e., i
experimental sample protocol.
'
c. Facility Tour
The control room, pool floor, and the beam port floor areas were
adequately illuminated, free of clutter and very clean. Fire
extinguishers in these areas and the basement had appropriate j
pressures and current inspection dates. i
d. Con..lusions
Compliance with TS requirements, SRC membership and reactor
programs was good.
1
2.0 Operations and Maintenance Activities
a. Inspection Scope (IP 40750)
The inspectors reviewed the reactor operations and maintenance
logs and observed reactor operations to determine compliance with
Operating License Condition 3.A. and the requirements in TS 2.0
and TS 3.0.
i
5
_ _ _ .
,
j .
1-
l
b. Observations and Findinos
The licensee operated the reactor from startup to full power and
, then to shutdown using the applicable procedures. The licensee
i operated the reactor for experiments, research, training, and
i irradiation of topaz. i
i The reactor operations logs and records were in compliance with
! the reactor's license condition and TS requirements. The licensee
l had operated the reactor at steady state thermal power levels not
in excess of 1.0 megawatt in accordance with Operating License
Condition 3.A. The inspectors verified that the reactor safety
limits had not been exceeded and were in compliance with TS 2.1.
During the annual shim safety control rod reactivity worth
determinations, the reactor shutdown margin and excess reactivity
were verified to be within TS limits. The inspectors also
verified that all of the required reactor control system
instrument channels,- safety circuits, and safety interlocks
required by the TS were tested and operable. The licensee's logs
and records. adequately documented reactor operations.
The reactor's maintenance logs and records were found to be in
compliance with the TS requirements. Safety-related corrective
maintenance performed on the reactor and operations console was .
'
properly documented in the reactor's maintenance log.
The replacement of the control element (rod) timer and reactor
scram relay modifications and the related safety evaluations were
adequate. Meeting minutes indicated that the modifications,
associated procedure changes, and safety evaluations were also
reviewed by the SRC as required.
c. Conclusions
The reactor was operated and maintained in accordance with the
reactor's license conditions, safety limits and limiting
conditions for operation, and TS requirements. The licensee's
logs and records satisfactorily documented reactor operations and
maintenance activities.
3.0 Procedures
a. Inspection Scope (IP 40750)
The inspectors reviewed the licensee's written procedures for
operating and maintaining the reactor, performing surveillance
activities and reactor instrument calibrations, and conducting
experiments to determine compliance with the requirements in TS 6.5.
6
'
.
.
b. Observations and Findinas
The inspectors reviewed changes to UWNR 142, " Procedure for
Measuring Fuel Element Bow and Growth, Revision 10." The
procedure changes highlighted a digital display modification
making the fuel element dimensional reading less prone to operator
interpretation or error. Discussions with the staff operators
l indicated that they were trained on the changes to the new
'
procedure.
UWNR 005, " Procedure Preparation, Modification, Control, and
Distribution, Step 11," required that all old copies of procedures
i in the reactor lab be replaced when approved revisions have been
made. On the facility tour, the inspectors reviewed UWNR 109,
! " Procedure for Liquid Waste Disposal, Revision 17," at the
l
modified liquid release discharge operating station. The review
specifically was to determine whether the prescribed valving
lineup in the procedure could inadvertently allow, by operator
error, a possible bypass of the filters causing a discharge of
radionuclide insolubles to the sewer. The inspectors determined
that the valves and system lineup did not compare to the installed
system. The inspectors determined that UWNR 109, located at the
local station had been superseded by Revision 18 on July 26, 1996.
Although the procedure was incorrect, no inadvertent discharge l
could have occurred with the outdated procedure. The licensee j
immediately replaced it with the latest revision from the master '
control room copy when notified by the inspectors.
c. Conclusions
The licensee had approved procedures to sufficiently conduct I
reactor operations, maintenance, experiments, surveillance testing l
and instrument calibrations in compliance with TS requirements. l
4.0 Requalification Training
i
a. Insoection Scone (IP 40750)
The inspectors reviewed the reactor operator requalification
training program to determine compliance with the requirements in l
10 CFR 19.12, UWNR 004, " Operator Proficiency Maintenance l
Program," and 10 CFR 55.59. l,
b. Observations and Findinos
The licensee's Operator Proficiency Maintenance Program conformed
to the requirements of 10 CFR Part 55.59. The program had
established requirements for ensuring that operators maintain ;
their licenses including attending training, performing the
'
required number of reactivity manipulations, and passing annual
written examinations and quarterly operating evaluations, medical
qualifications, and remedial training if required.
7
.
.
.
Requalification training records for selected operators were found
to contain all of the documentation required by the approved
requalification program. The reactor operator and senior reactor
operator requalification written examinations for 1994 and 1995
were reviewed. The annual written examinations continued to be
adequately thorough and comprehensive, and the content and scope
varied satisfactorily from previous examinations.
Remedial training and successful re-examination had been conducted
for one operator. The quarterly operating examinations appeared
to have been effective in evaluating licensed operator knowledge,
skills, and abilities.
The licensee had developed adequate records to track and document
operator requalification requirements. Interviews with reactor
staff verified that the requalification training program was
being carried out in accordance with the facility's approved
program and NRC regulations. The control room logs indicated
that most licensed operators had maintained active licenses for
1994-1996 and operators were knowledgeable in their licensed
responsibilities. Those who had not maintained an active license
were removed from licensed duties and the NRC was properly
notified,
c. Conclusions
A satisfactory training program was being conducted in accordance
with the NRC approved program. Adequate training records were
being maintained.
5.0. Surveillances
a. Inspection Scope (IP 40750)
The inspectors reviewed surveillance test results to determine
compliance with the requirements in TS 4.0.
b. Observations and Findinas
UWNR TS 6.5, " Operating Procedures," states, in part, that
" Written operating procedures shall be adequate to assure the
safety of operation of the reactor." UWNR 001, " Administrative
Guide, Section 15," states that "The Reactor Laboratory will
comply with the current Radiation Safety Regulations (RSR's)."
The RSR's Chapter IV, Section C., states that " Fume hoods must
have adequate air flow to ensure that restricted areas and hood
effluents remain below legally allowed effluent concentrations."
Evaluation of " Fume Hoods Inspection Flowchart" procedure,
paragraph II, states, in part, that the minimum air flow is
100 feet per minute. The inspectors noted that records were not
available to determine whether air flow testing was conducted when
fume hoods were installed. Discussions with the licensee
indicated that the University Safety Department employee
8
-. _. _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ __ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ .
.
'
!
i
i
responsible for fume hood testing was unaware that the reactor
i laboratory had fume hoods nor were the fume hoods included in the
.
Safety Department's surveillance schedule for the laboratory fume
hoods since at least 1992.- It was noted that the licensee
conducted flow checks of fume hoods on campus annually.
The licensee promptly conducted a satisfactory air flow test of
the fume hoods before the inspection concluded. The inspectors
will review the adequacy of the procedure at the next scheduled
inspection. (IFI 50-156/96001-03(DNMS))
UWNR 100, " Surveillance Activities," Revision 30 and UWNR 100A, !
"PM (Preventive Maintenance) Services," Revision 25, listed
weekly, monthly, semiannual, and annual surveillance or
maintenance activities that were required to be accomplished.
Selected schedules for May 1994 through July 1996 verified reactor
surveillances had been completed within the required time period.
Particular attention was given to the post fuel loading activities
in July 1996. Selected surveillance procedures were determined to
be adequate to verify the TS requirements.
c. Conclusions
All reactor surveillance tests had been completed and documented
at the required frequencies, and the surveillance test results met
TS requirements. The absence of the reactor laboratory fume hoods
on the testing schedule was an example of the weak university
oversight at the reactor laboratory.
6.0 Experiments
a. Inspection Scope (IP 40750)
The inspectors reviewed the licensee's program to control and i
conduct experiments performed in the reactor to determine
compliance with the requirements in TS 3.6, 4.2.5, 6.5, and 6.8.
b. Observations and Findinas
The inspectors observed experiment insertion and withdrawal using
the whale system, pneumatic transfer system, and grid box
facilities. The inspectors also reviewed the documentation of 4
several experimental samples placed into the core area.
Experiments were conducted in accordance with written procedures
which were approved and properly documented as required by TS.
c. Conclusions
All reactor experiments were conducted in accordance with properly
reviewed and approved procedures and satisfactorily documented in
the reactor operations log.
9
- _ _ _ - __ ______. __
.
.
7.0 Radiation Control
a. Inspection Scope (IP 40750)
The inspectors reviewed the radiation protection program to
determine compliance with the requirements in 10 CFR Part 20 and
TS 3.4, 3.5, 3.6, 4.2.3, 4.2.4, 4.2.5, 5.4, 6.2, and 6.6.
b. Qbservations and Findinas
The inspectors reviewed personnel exposure records from the last
inspection to the present. The records indicated that badged
reactor personnel had not exceeded 10 CFR 20.1201 regulatory
limits. The inspectors noted that for June 1996, one individual
had a total yearly accumulated dose of 20 millirem but the
previous month (May) the total yearly accumulated dose was
recorded as 60 millirem for 1996.
Discussion with the UHP revealed that approximately every other
month administrative errors by the dosimeter vendor resulted in
exposure discrepancies. The UHP further explained that the
vendor's administrative calculation errors were primarily the root
cause of the exposure errors, and why badges not exposed to
radiation indicated various amounts of exposure. Consequently, it
was learned that the vendor did not subtract the background
reading from the recorded exposures. The dosimeter vendor
subsequently issued corrected exposure records once informed by
the UHP.
The inspectors reviewed the reactor laboratory's HP documentation
associated with the reactor fuel elements transfer to the pool
pit, draining of the pool and welding of the reactor pool aluminum
liner. The RD enlisted the aid of a qualified campus welder to
assist in the welding of the crack in the pool liner. Generally
the HP contamination control practices appeared to be adequate.
In an interview with the campus pool welder, the inspectors noted
that his 10 CFR 19.12 radiation protection training was
appropriately conducted by the RD for the pool liner weld repair.
The inspectors reviewed the visitor's log entry and noted that the
welder was issued an electronic dosimeter during the pool liner
repair and received a dose of 105 millirem. However, the
inspectors also determined that the welder's official dose was not
included on the annual NRC report although it was the highest dose
for the reporting period at the reactor laboratory. The licensee
subsequently resubmitted the appropriate information to the NRC
after the exit.
Review of the reactor laboratory procedures and the campus RSR's
and discussions with the university RSO and RD indicated a
conflict over the responsibility and administration of the reactor
radiation protection program.
10
.
.
l
!
The RSO indicated that the radiation protection program at the
reactor laboratory was not his responsibility because he. had no
l authority over the reactor license. The RSO pointed out that the
l
'
RSR make no reference to the reactor laboratory whatsoever. The
RSO did not consider the reactor laboratory as a radionuclide
facility but a operating reactor.
l UWNR 001, " Standing Operating Instructions," Step 15, states, in
i part, that the RD will comply with the RSR and the RD is
l responsible for enforcing this policy.
The RSR " Health Physics Inspections and Enforcement of University
Radiation Safety Committee Regulation," Step A, states, in part,
thct the Radiation Safety Office will inspect all radionuclide
facilities at least once a year. Step B, states, that the
Radiation Safety Office will inspect for compliance with
university policies, State and Federal regulations. It also
states that the reactor laboratory is a radionuclide facility. ,
The RSO presented a copy of a 1992 licensee amendment sent to the
NRC, that provided an update on his status as the new RSO manager
and the applicable NRC licenses of responsibility and oversight.
In addition, he indicated that the letter sent to the NRC did not
list the reactor licensee as his responsibility. He further
explained that he considered the RD the RSO for the reactor
laboratory. The RS0 assumed that the reactor radiation protection
program was administered by the RD. However, the RD stated that
his understanding was that the RSO always had oversight
responsibility for the reactor radiation protection program
because the TS organization chart outlined the university campus
(health physics) radiation protection office as having structure
over the reactor laboratory. i
In addition, the inspectors noted that the university's ALARA
program that established the ALARA policy procedures and
instructions to foster the ALARA concept did not include the
reactor laboratory. During the exit meeting, the licensee
appointed the RSO responsible for oversight of the radiation
protection program at the reactor. In addition, the RSR's and the
ALARA Program will be revised accordingly to provide structure for
the radiation program oversight at the reactor laboratory. This
will be reviewed during the next inspection.
(IFI No. 50-156/96001-04(DNMS))
Postings, labeling, and surveys met regulatory requirements as
observed on the tour of the reactor laboratory. Operators were
observed using adequate, although sometimes inconsistent,
contamination control techniques; i.e., using plastic bags to
prevent the spread of possible contamination but without rubber
gloves during water sampling; using proper personal protective
11
_ _ . _ _. .. ._ _ _ - . . . . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ . _
. . .
'
I
!
i
i
equipment and monitoring for personal contamination after removing -i
samples or experiments from the reactor pool without hand !
l protection. In general, the staff appeared to be adequately
l
)
trained and aware of the radiological conditions in their work i
areas.
Area radiation monitors and portable instruments were calibrated
as required. !
.
c. Conclusions
L All badged reactor personnel exposures were significantly below 10 l
l CFR 20.1201 limits. Training of the staff and radiation workers ;
l appeared to be adequate. Confusion regarding the radiation i
protection program authority at the reactor laboratory resulted in i
t
'
a lack of ownership in providing an active or dynamic oversight of !
health physics aspects related to reactor operations.
- 8.0 Environmental Protection i
!
a. Inspection Scone (IP 40750) (
l
The inspectors reviewed the licensee's program for the discharge i
or removal of radioactive liquid, gases, and solids from the !
reactor laboratory. !
!- i
b. Observations and Findinas !
From May 1995 to June 1996, several planned liquid releases had I
occurred. A modification of the waste disposal system had been l
installed to ensure no radionuclide insoluables could be i
discharged. All sewer discharges were within regulatory limits. ;
The inspectors evaluated the new waste pump and filter *
installation and determined that the new modification was
satisfactory. I
Airborne effluent monitoring records for 1994-1995 indicated that
the releases were well within the regulatory limits. Several
analysis records were reviewed and no deficiencies were noted.
The inspectors reviewed the COMPLY code input data for
radionuclide emissions from the reactor laboratory and no
deficiencies were noted.
The licensee had not transported any solid radioactive waste since
the last inspection. The inspectors determined that the solid
radioactive waste was properly stored and posted as required.
c. Conclusions
Both airborne and liquid effluent releases were well within the
regulatory limits.
12
_ _ __ _ __ . _ . _,
.
9.0 Audit and Reviews
a. Insoection ScoDe (IP 40750)
The inspectors reviewed the meetings, audits and reviews conducted
by the Reactor Safety Committee (RSC) to determine compliance with
the requirements in TS 6.1 and 6.2.
b. Observations and Findinos
Technical Specifications 6.1.c. required, in part, that a
University Health Physicist (UHP) conduct an inspection of the
reactor at least monthly to assure compliance with the regulations
of 10 CFR 20.
The inspectors identified, through review of the monthly audit
records, that the licensee failed to conduct the required monthly
or quarterly audits on multiple occasions in 1995 and 1996. For
example, the monthly reactor operations audits relating to health
physic compliance for September, October, November and December
1995 and February, March, April, and May 1996.
Discussions with the University RS0 and the UHP were held after
they were notified of the identified problems. The RSO stated
that he was assigned the responsibility of the campus radiation
safety office in 1992 and that since that time he was unaware of
any monthly audit requirements related to the reactor laboratory.
The RSO and UHP'both indicated that they did not have'a copy of
the reactor's TS and were never aware of the TS requirement to
conduct monthly HP audits of reactor operations. They also stated
that they were never informed of the TS requirement or their
commitment to conduct reactor operations audits. In addition,
they indicated that their monthly audits were normally conducted
as a " courtesy" for the reactor laboratory, not as a result of a
regulatory requirement. The licensee committed to immediately
implement corrective actions to comply with the requirement.
Failure to conduct monthly reactor operation health physics audits
is a violation of TS 6.1. (Vio. No. 50-156/96001-01(DNMS))
The inspectors reviewed the annual yearly radiation protection
audits of the reactor laboratory and determined that they were not
detailed or technically comprehensive partly due to lack of
ownership of the radiation protection program at the reactor
laboratory.
The annual audits generally consisted of reviewing the TS monthly
reactor operations audits over the past 12 months to ensure that
the reactor operation forms were correctly completed. The monthly
TS audit (noted to be conducted sporadically) guidance was
designed by the RD for use by the UHP and it covered generally a
documentation review of reactor activities. Independent
!
assessments of other HP related activities at the reactor
, laboratory were never instituted by the RSO. For example, the
'
reactor laboratory underwent a major evolution in draining the
13
!
.
t
l
i
pool, removing fuel elements from the core, and welding on a
potentially activated aluminum pool liner over a one month period
'
without any UHP involvement. Discussions with the UHP indicated
that the radiation safety office were unaware of this repair
I
activity at the reactor laboratory.
In general, the health physics program audits appeared weak
l because they failed to cover a broad spectrum of ptogram areas.
The audit findings appeared to be superficial as they either
lacked adequate detail or appeared to lack recommendations or
solutions. The licensee agreed to review this area for
improvement. This will be reviewed during the next inspection.
(IFI No. 50-156/96001-02(DNHS))
c. Conclusions
RSC meetings were conducted as required. Communications between
the RS0 and reactor staff failed to address the implementation of
the monthly reactor operations audits as required by TS. Annual
audits were weak in scope and depth.
a. Inspection Scope (IP 40750)
The inspectors reviewed the emergency plan for the reactor
laboratory to determine compliance with the requirements in 10 CFR ,
50.54(q) and (r). The inspectors also followed up on a licensee l
identified weakness in the campus police and security alarm
response system. l
,
b. Observations and Findinos
The emergency plan procedures were sufficiently detailed. The RSC
review of the audit of the emergency plan and procedures was l
appropriately documented in the RSC meeting minutes and met the j
requirements in TS 6.2. l
The inspectors reviewed documentation related to the emergency i
drills held on November 6, 1995 and October 31, 1994. The
r'nergency plan did not require any written objectives, critiques
or evaluations related to the drill that could help identify any
emergency drill weaknesses or suggest corrective actions. The
Reactor Supervisor stated that they had not identified any
weaknesses requiring corrective action during the drills.
Subsequent discussions with various reactor personnel confirmed
that these activities were conducted successfully. Documentation
indicated that the licensee's staff had been trained in the
emergency plan and procedures and had participated 4- the drill.
Records reflected that operators were retrained an' ,ly and .
l
examined on emergency procedures as part of the op. . tor
i requalification program.
l
14
._ _ -. _.
.
.
The emergency equipment locker was maintained at a strategic
location and included monitoring equipment and contamination
control supplies. Emergency equipment had been inventoried ,
annually as required.
l
The letter of agreement between the University of Wisconsin ;
Nuclear Reactor and the University Hospital was current. Other
services have been mandated or had not required written agreements
was confirmed by the inspectors through police and security
interviews.
The inspectors conducted discussions with the campus police and
security and determined that they had an adequate understanding of
their roles in emergencies at the reactor laboratory. The
inspectors also discussed a licensee identified weakness regarding
the potential for the campus police dispatcher to make a computer
code entry error responding to reactor laboratory alarms. The
incorrect code could potentially misdirect the responders to the
wrong location, incorrect procedures, etc. The police dispatcher
had knowledge of the problem and was capable of demonstrating
adequate ability to respond to the reactor laboratory alarms.
Campus police and security have future computer software changes
planned that will eliminate the potential for error.
The inspectors identified errors in the several incorrect
emergency notification telephone numbers for the reactor staff on
the police computer data base. Although the police had the
updated numbers, they stated that updating the computer data base l
was delayed because of a staffing shortage but the updates were l
expected to be added shortly. The inspectors advised the reactor 1
staff of these concerns.
1
The licensee and campus police implemented their procedures for
public demonstrations planned for August 22, 1996. The inspectors
determined that the police were strategically positioned and
prepared to safeguard the reactor laboratory. The reactor
laboratory staff had reviewed the appropriate emergency procedures
for the anticipated event. The demonstrators did not arrive at
the reactor laboratory as originally planned.
No significant changes in the Emergency Response Organization were
noted.
c. Conclusions
Review of emergency equipment and supplies, changes to the
emergency plan, and documentation relating to emergency drills as j
well as interviews and observations indicated that the licensee's i
emergency program was maintained in a state of operational
l readiness. (Closed Followup item 50-156/94001-01)
l
l
15
.
'
i
11.0 Fuel Handling
a. " Inspection Scope (IP 40750)
The inspectors reviewed the fuel handling procedures at the
reactor laboratory to determine compliance with TS 6.
b. Observations and Findinas
The facility fuel handling program review included the
verification of procedures for fuel handling and the technical
adequacy in the areas of criticality safety and TS. Records
review and discussions with personnel indicated that fuel handling
operations had been carried out in conformance with procedures.
Log entries and fuel location maps for fuel handling activities
were appropriately documented.
c. Conclusions
Procedures for fuel handling were technically adequate for reactor
operations.
12.0 Review of Periodic and Special Reports
a. Inspection Scope (IP 90713)
The inspectors reviewed the licensee's submittal of reports and
notifications to the NRC to determine compliance with the
requirements in TS 6.7.
b. Observations and Findinas
The 1995 annual report had been submitted in a timely manner and
contained the information required by TS. No special reports had
been issued to the NRC since the last NRC inspection of the
reactor laboratory in May 1994.
The 1996 annual report was reviewed and the inspectors determined
that the highest whole body dose declared in the annual report was
less than the dose determined for the worker discussed in Section
7.0. The licensee attributed the error to an oversight by the
campus Radiation Safety Office. The licensee submitted a
correction on September 3, 1996.
c. Conclusions
Required reports had been submitted to the NRC in accordance with
TS requirements although the highest radiation dose for the 1996
report was not included.
l
l
16
I i
I
)
. . . . . - - . - - .- -
.
.
l
13.0 Transportation of Radioactive Materials
a. Inspection Scone (IP 86740)
The inspectors reviewed the licensee's radioactive materials
! shipping program for compliance with the requirements in
l Department of Transportation (DOT) and NRC regulations, 49 CFR
Parts 172 & 173 and 10 CFR Part 71, respectively.
l b. Observations and Findinas
e Reactor License
1
! The reactor laboratory transferred reactor irradiated material l
from the reactor license to the university byproduct material i
license. Radwaste would also be transferred to the university
broad scope license for packaging and disposal when the need
arose.
e Broadscope License l
l Inspection findings indicated that DOT regulations may not have
been followed in several instances following the transfer of l
irradiated material from the reactor license to users authorized
by the university byproduct material license. These findings will
be reviewed during the next broadscope inspection. ,
I
c. Conclusions
The transfer of reactor irradiated material was per procedure.
14.0 Followup Action on Inspectors Identified Items (IP 92701)
a. (Closed) Open Item No. 50-156/94001-01(DRSS): I
The inspectors reviewed the documentation of emergency drill
evaluations and determined that they had met the licensee's
program requirements. This item is closed.
I
15.0 Followup on Licensee reported events (IP 92700)
a. The inspectors reviewed all the activities to repair the reactor
pool leak and found that the licensee's actions had been in :
accordance with procedures to unload and reload the core and
drain and refill the pool. The post repair tests indicated the
leak had been satisfactorily repaired.
1
! I
'
l
l
t
17
l
l
.
-
'
3
16.0 Persons Contacted
.
.
University of Wisconsin
M. Corradini* UW College of Engineering Associate Dean
- Gilbert A. Emmert* University of Wisconsin Department Chair
, Kathy Irwin* UW Legal Services Senior UW Counsel
R.J. Cashwell* UW Reactor Laboratory Reactor Director
S. Matusewic* UW Reactor Laboratory Reactor Supervisor
.
Ronald Bresell* UW Safety Department Assistant Director
Additional technical, operational, and administrative personnel were
contacted by the inspectors during the course of the inspection.
'
- Denotes those attending the exit meeting on August 23, 1996.
'
17.0 Exit Interview (IP 30703)
The inspectors presented the inspection results to members of the
- licensee management at an exit meeting on August 23, 1996. The licensee
acknowledged the findings that were presented. They also requested
'
'
additional time to revied the issues to provide additional information
if available. That request was taken into consideration by the
. inspectors while, preparing this report. The inspectors asked the
licensee whether any material examined during the inspection should be ,
-
considered proprietary. No proprietary information was identified. !
l
18
g _ _ _ .. _
.
4 '
Insoection Procedures Used
IP 40750 Class II Nonpower Reactors
IP 86740 Inspection of Transportation Activities
IP 90713 Review of Periodic and Special Reports
IP 92701 Followup on Inspectors Identified Problems
Items Opened and Closed
Opened
l
l 50-156/96001-01 VIO Failure to conduct monthly audits of the radiation
i
protection program
50-156/96001-02 IFI Anr.ta1 radiation protection audits were weak
'
50-156/96001-03 IFI Surveillance of fume hoods was not performed
l 50-156/96001-04- IFI The Reactor inclusion into the University's and ALARA
radiation protection programs
l
Closed .
50-156/94001-01 IFI Documentation of Emergency Plari exercises
l
l List of Documents Reviewed l
Safety Analysis Report
Safety Evaluation Report
- Reactor Operating License
!
Technical Specifications
Administrative Procedures
Operating Procedures
Maintenance Procedures
Surveillance Procedures
Maintenance and Surveillance Records
Emergency procedures
Training Program
Emergency P1an
i Dosimetry Records
i Training Records
t
Various Reports
,
University Radiation Safety Regulations
i
19
_ - . - . . - -
. . _ - - -- . . .
,
e
List of Acronyms Used
ALARA As Low as Reasonably Achievable
CFR Code of Federal Regulations ,
CORD Central Office for Receiving and Distributing ;
DNMS Division of Nuclear Materials and Safeguards l
DOT Department of Transportation l
'
HP Health Physics
IP Inspection Procedure !
NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission !
PDR Public Document Room
PM Preventive Maintenance .
RSC Reactor Safety Committee l
RSO Radiation Safety Officer '
SAR Safety Analysis Report
SPGHG Shipping Paper and Declaration of Hazardous Goods
TLD Thermal Luminescent Detector
TS Technical Specifications i
UHP University Health Physicist I
URSR University Radiation Safety Regulations ,
UWNR University of Wisconsin Nuclear Reactor I
!
l
1
.x_
1
l
l
20
,