ML20209A718
| ML20209A718 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000113 |
| Issue date: | 06/22/1999 |
| From: | Williams J ARIZONA, UNIV. OF, TUCSON, AZ |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9907060111 | |
| Download: ML20209A718 (3) | |
Text
-
- Nucleu Re:ctor Laboratory John G. Williame, Director Engineering Building (20)
P. O. Box 210020
{i e-maih Jgw@bigdog. engr. arizona.edu voice (520)621-9729 Tucson, Arizona 85721-0020 FAX (520)621-8096 Date: 22 June,1999 To: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attn: Document Control Desk Mailstop PI-37 1 White Flint North l 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852 From: John G. Williams, Director, Nuclear Reactor Laboratory, !
University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721-0020 Re: Technical Specifications required written report, transmitted within thirty days; Facility License R-52, Docket 50-113. This item is concerning 10CFR50.36 (c) (3). l 1
Technical Specifications for Facility License R-52, the University of Arizona, requires in section 6.7 c.4 a written report to the Commission of, "Any observed inadequacies in the implementation of administrative or procedural controls." This r rt fulfills that requirement in the case of a discovered deficiency in '
implementation of a surveillance item required in Specification 4.6 of the University of Arizona Research -
Reactor Technical Specifications (Amendment 17, as approved on December 18,1997).
Specification 4.6 states: "The conductivity of bulk coolant water shall be verified to be within specified limits at least monthly." The specified limit is interpreted to mean 5 micrombos/ centimeter, the same value as that specified in Specification 3.1, Limiting Conditions for Operation, and " monthly" is defined in Tech.
Specs. to mean at one-month intervals (interval not to exceed six weeks).
Descriotion of the Occurrence It was discovered on June 7,1999, during review of Tech. Specs. and procedures, that compliance with I Specification 4.6 was not enforced in procedure number UARR 155, the methly checklist. Compliance l with Specification 3.1 (LCOs) is enforced in procedure number UARR 152, the preliminary checklist The prelimmary checklist is completed on each day when the reactor is operated. J Under usual circumstances, the reactor is operated at least once during every month and so compliance with the preliminary checklist ensures compliance with Specification 4.6. During summer months, however, when demand for recctor services may be light and when staff may be taking vacation, it is possible that an interval of more than six weeks may elapse between days of reactor operation. In that case, the omission of the relevant check from UARR 155 can result in a violation of Tecimical Specifications.
After noticing this, the Reactor Supervisor performed an audit of the records of performance of the surveillance required by Specification 4.6 back to 1 January,1990. He discovered that during 1098 there
\ ~
9907060111 990622 1 tl& ,
was an interval between conductivity checks from July 12 to September 14, which exceeds the Tech. Spec.
limit. This was the only occasion since 1990 when such a violation occurred.
During calendar year 1998, there were many checks of the bulk coolant conductivity. The changes observed were gradual, and at no time was observed a value greater than, or even close to, 5.0 micromhos/ centimeter. The values recorded on July 12 and on September 14 were, respectively,1.0 and 1.2 micromhos/ centimeter.
.Cause of the Occurrence I
The failure to comply with Specification 4.6 during the summer of 1998 occurred because of the omission of this item from the monthly checklist, procedure UARR 155. He inclusion of this check in procedure i 152 ensures compliance with Specification 3.1, which applies when the reactor is operatmg, but does not guarantee coinpliance with Specification 4.6 when the reactor is not operated for an extended period. This possibility had been averlooked during previous reviews of these procedures.
Hus the omission of this check fron UARR 155 is identified as an observed inadequacy in procedural l controls. This particular procedure had been reviewed and revised on at least four occasion since 1994.
. No individual can be found to be at fault. %e Reactor Supervisor performed his duty correctly in identifying and reporting this problem.
Possible Conscaueness The Basis for Specification 4.6 reads, " Based on experience, in which pool water conductivity changes I slowly with timi., observation at these intervals provides acceptable surveillance of conductivity to assure j that accelerated fuel clad corrosion does not occur." In view of the small changes in conductivity observed I during 1998, and in particular between the two values reported above, it can be concluded that no accelerated fuel clad corrosion occurred during this period.
No threat to public health and safety occurred, and nor was the integrity of the fuel material compromised. ;
There was no violation of Safety Limits, Limiting Safety System Settings, or Limiting Conditions for l Operation.
Egpedial Actions A revised version of the monthly checklist UARR 155 was prepared and approved by the Director of the Nuclear Reactor Laboratory on June 7,1999. The Reactor Supervisor has been instructed to check that all
. surveillance and maintenance items and limiting conditions for operation, as required in Technical Specifications, are appropriately included in facility checklist procedures and in the procedure for audit of
. operations (UARR 159). These actions will be reported to the Reactor Committee for review at their next scheduled nu:cting.
i l
I believe that these actions will prevent a recurrence of any similar oversight of the requirements of UARR j Technical Specifications. l l
((M _
J. G. Tilli.uns, Director, Nuclear Reactor Laboratory l 2 1 E
l
,...?. . ,
copies to:
Events Assessment, Generic Communications and Non-Power Reactors Branch Division of Regulatory Improvement Programs Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation One White Flint North 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852-2738 The V.P. for Research, University of Arizona Richard C. Powell The Director of the Arizona Research Laboratories Michael A. Cusanovich Members of the Reactor Committee The Reactor Supervisor Harry J. Doane i
l l
l i
I l
l O
3