IR 05000139/1978002

From kanterella
Revision as of 18:50, 17 December 2024 by StriderTol (talk | contribs) (StriderTol Bot insert)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
IE Insp Repts 50-139/78-02 & 70-0115/78-01 on 780109-10.No Noncompliance Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Facility Organization & Operation,Measurement & Controls & Inventory
ML20054C815
Person / Time
Site: 05000000, 05000139, 07000115
Issue date: 01/25/1978
From: Hamada A, Hamada G, Norderhaug L, Wieder A
NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V)
To:
Shared Package
ML19323G049 List:
References
FOIA-81-339 50-139-78-02, 50-139-78-2, 70-0115-78-01, 70-115-78-1, NUDOCS 8204210715
Download: ML20054C815 (3)
v • d • e


Text

f

.

. ' '

'

.

U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0:1 MISSION OFFICE,0F INSPECTION AND.EllFORCEMENT

.

REGION. Y

..

70-115/78-01 (IE-V-214)

Report No.

50-139/78-02 (IE-V-214)70-115 SNM-108 Docket No.

50-139 License No.

R-78 Safeguards Group

Licensee:

University of Washington

.

College of Engineering

,.

Seattle, Washington 98105 Facility Name:

.

"

Inspection at:

Inspection conducted:

January 9-10, 1978

'

\\

  • * ' -

"E

'

Inspectors:

-/.

'-

S -'

.

G Ha aa, statistician /Lhemist Date Signed

,

'

l Nak

':

25,t?7f

-

.

'A.

wieder, dateguaras Auditor Date Signed Approved by:

j. l d 8%

A /

/k

1. R. Forde"rhhug,' Chief, Safeg Branch

' Date Signed Summary:

i l

.

Inspection on January 9-10, 1978 (Report No. 70-115/78-01 and 50-139/78-02 (IE-V-214)

-

Areas Inspected:

The licensee was inspected for compliance with applicable sections of the regulations pertaining to material control and accounting requirements.

These included facility organization,and operation, measure-ment and controls, storage and internal control, inventory and records and reports.

The inspection involved 16 inspector hours onsite by two NRC inspectors.

  • Results:

No items of noncompliance were identified in any of the areas

~

inspected.

'

l e204210715 011110 L

1-399 PDR

.. _ _ _

__

_

6'Y

.

.

.

'

,,

_

'~

n

-

DETAILS

'

1.

Persons Contacted Professor W. Chalk, Director, Nuclear Engineering Laboratory T. P. Miller, Assistant Director, Reactor Operations T. Carrier, Senior Reactor Operator

  • Denotes those present at Exit Interview.

fi

\\

2.

Action on Previous Inspection Findinas g,

(Closed) Noncompliance (50-139/75-01, 70-115/75-01)

Licensee did not develop and maintain written nuclear material control and accounting procedures.

A copy of the current material control and accounting procedures was obtained for our files and i

i the matter is considered closed.

3.

Facility Organization and Operation l

The facility was inspected against applicable sections of the

!

regulations pertaining to material control and accounting

!

requirements.

The inspection also included a review of authorized possession limits and authorized uses of special nuclear material (SNM).

No items of noncompliance were' identified.

4.

Measurement and Controls The inspection consisted of a review of SNM depletion and l

production data and the reporting of these data in the Material Status Reports.

No items of noncompliance were identified.

5.

Storage and Internal Control Inventory records maintained for in-reactor and storage were reviewed.

,

l No items of noncompliance were identified.

.

6.

Inventory l

An inventory of stored fresh fuel plates by serial number and scrap by item number was conducted.

Pluton ources

_;

..

--

V

-

.-

-

.....

-

..

-2-were identified by serial number.

Spent fuel elements were piece counted and the core content was accepted on the basis of a fuel bundle location chart.

-

No items of noncompliance were identified.

7.

Records and Reports The semiannual Nuclear Material Status Reports (NRC-742) and the Nuclear fiaterial Transaction Reports (NRC-741) for the period May 1,1975 through January 9,1978 were reviewed and evaluated against the recordkeeping and SNM report requirements of the regulations.

-

l No items of noncompliance were identified.

'

8.

Exit Interview _

The inspection findings were discussed with representatives of facility management as indicated under Item 1.

-

.

D

UNITED STATES

[.

,,

ma ata cu y

fP

'o NUCLE AR REGULATORY COMMISSI'

[

REGloN ll

,

y, 101 M ARIETT A sT REET.N.W.

-

g

'

ATLANT A. GEORGI A 30303

'...-

SEP 7 1978 In Reply Refer To:

h

'

RII:DEM 50-83f18-05 University of Florida College of Engineering Department of Nuclear Engineering Sciences Attn: Dr. M. J. Ohanian, Chairman l

College of Engineering 202 Nuclear Sciences Center l

Gainesville, Florida 32601 Gentlemen:

This refers to the inspection conducted by Mr. D. E. Moore of this office on August 16-17, 1978 of activities authorized by NRC Operating License No. R-56 at UPTR and to the discussions of our findings held with Dr. E. E. Carroll at the conclusion of the inspection.

The area examined during this inspection was your physical protection program and its implementation. Within this area, the inspection consisted of selective examinations of procedures and representative records, interviews with personnel and observations by the inspector.

During the inspection, it was found that certain activities under your license appear to be in noncompliance with NRC requirements. This item and references to pertinent requirements are listed in the Notice of Violation enclosed herewith as Appendix A.

This notice is sent to you pursuant to the provisions of Section 2.201 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," Part 2, Title 10, code of Federal Regulations.

Section 2.201 requires you to submit to this office, within 20 days of your receipt of this notice, a written statement or explanation in reply including:

(1) corrective steps which have been taken by you and the results achieved; (2) corrective steps which will be taken to avoid further noncompliance; and (3) the date when full compliance will be achieved.

In accordance with Section 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice",

Part 2, Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, a copy of this letter and the enclosed inspection report will be placed in the NRC's Public Document Room.

If this report contains any information that you (or your contractor) believe to be proprietary, it is necessary that you l

make a written application within 20 days to this office to withhold

'

such information from public disclosure. Any such application must include a full statement of the reasons on the basis of which it is

,/

,

/

7p)ll0 e

pdp

/3

..

. e

_

~..m

.

.

  • I

~ '. ' -

,,

.. -

,

.

.

SEP 7 19713 University of Florida

claimed that the information is proprietary, and should be prepared so that proprietary information identified in the application is contained in a separate part of the document.

If we do not hear from you in this regard within the specified period, the report will be placed in the Public Document Room.

Should you have any questions concerning this letter, we will be glad to discuss them with you.

Sine rely,

.

_

!W.B.

'e a, Chief Safeguar s Branch

Enclosures:

1.

Appendix A, Notice of Violation 2.

RII Inspection Report

_

No. 50-83/78-05

.

l l

l l

_... _ _

_,. _. _.. __

. - _ _. _ _..

-

-..

-

.

....

...

.

.-

.'

.

.

.

APPENDIX A NOTICE OF VIOLATION University of Florida Training Reactor (UFTR)

License No. R-56 Based on the results of the NRC inspection conducted on August 16-17, 1978, it appears that certain of your activities were not conducted in full compliance with NRC regulations and comitments of your approved security plan as indicated below. The item has been categorized as described in our correspondence to you dated December 31, 1974.

Part II,C,1 of the UITR Physical Security Plan, dated September 15, 1976, requires the reactor keys to be locked in the key cabinet when the reactor is not in operation.

Contrary to the above, on August 17, 1978, at approximately 9:30 am, the inspector observed a reactor key inserted in the console while the reactor was in a shutdown mode. No reactor operator was present l

at the console.

This is an infraction.

l l

e /D!/g}0

-

,

2--

~0 pp

,o-

  • NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

.

'o

.,(

-

,

REGION ll

,c

o 101 M ARIETT A STREET,N.W.

$

ATLANT A. GEORGI A 30303

7

  • dg /

!

g,..v

-

,

...

Report No.: 50-83/78-05 Docket No.: 50-83 License No.: R-56 Category: F Licensee: University of Florida College of Engineering Department of Nuclear Engineering Sciences 202 Nuclear Sciences Center Gainesville, Florida 32601 University of Florida Training Reactor (UFTR)

Facility Name:

Inspection at:

Gainesville, Florida

Inspection Conducted: August 16-17, 1978 Inspector:

D. E. Moo e

&/3hf

"

Reviewed By:

~ Bate'

,

F.~P.Gillespie, Chief Security and Investigation Section Safeguards Branch Inspection Summary 16-17, 1978 (Report No. 50-83/78-05)

Inspection of AugustAnnounced inspection of physical security program.

Areas Inspected:

Areas inspected were selected portions of security plan, security areas, security systems, security organization, a

REGION il

e

&

c

$

101 M ARlETTA STREET.N.W.

^

ATLANTA, GEORGI A 3o3o3

%

/

o I

In Reply Refer To:

RII:DEM 50-83/79-1

_. _

_

_._

University of Florida Attn:

M. J. Obanian, Chairman College of Engineering 202 Nuclear Sciences Center Gainesville, Florida 32611 Gentlemen:

This refers to the inspection conducted by D. E. Moore of this office on of activities authorized by NRC License No. R-56 at April 27, 1979 University of Florida Test Reactor and to the discussion of our findings held with M. J. Ohanian at the conclusion of the inspection.

The area examined during this inspection was your physical protection Within this area, the inspection con-program and its implementation.

sisted of selective examinations of procedures and representative records, interviews with personnel and observations by the inspector.

Within the scope of this inspection, no items of noncompliance were

.

disclosed.

,

We have examined actions you have taken with regard to previously These are discussed in the ecclosed identified enforcement matters.

inspection report.

  • In accordance with Section 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice",

Part 2, Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, a copy of this letter and the enclosed insipection report will be placed in the NRC's Public Document Room..

If this report contains any information that you (or your contractor) believe to be proprietary, it is necessary that you make a written application within 20 days to this office to withhold such information from public disclosure.

Any such application must include a full statement of the reasons on the basis of which it is claimed that the information is proprietary, and should be prepared so that proprietary information identified in the application is contained in a separate part of the document.

If we do not hear from you in this regard within the specified period, the report will be placed in the

,

'Pu.blic Document Room.

...

.

'

po?

.

? y qf x._

a

-

'.

.

..

.

.

,

.

.

.

MAY 111979-2-

-

University of Florida Should you have any questions concerning this letter, we will be glad to discuss them with you.

Sincerely, c **

'

t s

W

_....

iam e

a, Chief

.

,

j Safeguards Branc).

'

Enclosures:

1.

Inspection Report No. 50-83/79-1 (Not Exempt)

2.

Inspection Summary (Not Exempt)

.

.

O

%

,*

. * '.

-..

-

- --

-

_ -, _ _. - - -

_-.. _ _, - - _.., -. _

. _..

-

_ _. _ - _ - - - - -, - _ _ - _ - _ - - _ _ _ _, _

_

-

.

.

.,

UNITED STATES

'

.9 pan Krocq%'$

NUCtEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

,

<

REGION ll

.,.,

-

$

101 M ARIETTA STREET. N.W.

.

ATLANTA, GEORGI A 30303

,

l!

-

s,*****/

MAY 111979 o

.

Report No. 50-83/79-1 Licensee: University of Florida

~

202 Nuclear Sciences Center

-_

Gainesville, Florida 32601 Facility Name:

University of Florida Test Reactor Docket No. 50-83 License No. R-56 Safeguards Group No.

.

C Inspec or; [ (

[S'O

// [~) *

,

Date Signed D. E. Moore 8 [<r !r)9.

Approved by:

3%

(,EL g Section Chief, Safeguards Date Signed W. J. Tobin, t

Branch SUMMARY

-

Inspection on April 27, 1979

.

Areas Inspected This routine, unannounced inspection involved six inspector-hours on-site in the areas of security plans, protection of SNM, security

.

i organization, a

REGION li

,

fa 101 MARIETTA sT., N.W sulTE 3100 o

W, ATLANTA. GEORGIA 3o303

.....

nov3, ops In Reply Refer To:

RII:CJ 50-83/79-02

-

.

University of Florida Attn:

M. J. Ohanian, Chairman l

College of Engineering

,

202 Nuclear Sciences Center

l Gainesville, Florida 32611 l

l Gentlemen:

l This refers to the inspection conducted by C. Julian of this office on October 22-25, 1979 of activities authorized by NRC License No. R-56 for the University of Florida Training Reactor facility, and to the discussion of our findings held with N. J. Diaz at the conclusion of the inspection.

Areas examined during the inspection and our findings are discussed in the enclosed inspection report. Within these areas, the inspection consisted of selective examinations of procedures and representative records, interviews with I

personnel, and observations by the inspector.

We have examined actions you have taken with regard to previously reported unresolved items. The status of these items is discussed in the enclosed report.

During the inspection, it was found that certain activities under your license appear to be in noncompliance with NRC requirements. These items and references to pertinent requirements are listed in the Notice of Violation enclosed here-with as Appendix A.

This notice is sent to you pursuant to the provisions of Section 2.201 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice", Part 2, Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations. Section 2.201 requires you to submit to this office, within 20 days of your receipt of this notice, a written statement or explanation in reply including:

(1) corrective steps which have been taken by you, and the results achieved; (2) corrective steps which will be taken to avoid further noncompli-ance; and (3) the date when full compliance will be achieved.

In accordance with Section 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," Part 2, l

Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, a copy of this letter and the enclosed inspection report will be placed in the NRC's Public Document Room.

If this report contains any information that you (or your contractor) believe to be proprietary, it is necessary that you make a written application within 20 days

&fpbA

/f

'

-

...-.

-

.

.

.

.

.

University of Florida-2-NOV 2 01979 to this office to withhold such information from public disclosure. Any such application must include a full statement of the reasons on the basis of which it is claimed that the information is proprietary, and should be prepared so that proprietary information identified in the application is contained in a separate part of the document.

If we do not hear from you in this regard within the specified period, the report will be placed in the Public Document Room.

Should you have any questions concerning this letter, we will be glad to discuss'

them with you.

Sincerely, E. c.

R. C. l wts, Acting Chief Reactor Operations and Nuclear Support Branch Enclosures:

1.

Appendix A, Notice of Violation 2.

Inspection Report No. 50-83/79-02

_

_ _.

-

..

.

.

.

.

APPENDIX A i

NOTICE OF VIOLATION University of Florida License No. R-56 University of Florida Training Reactor

.

!

Based on the NRC inspection October 22-25, 1979, certain of your activities were

'

apparently not conducted in full compliance with NRC requirements as indicated below.

These items have been categorized as described in correspondence to you dated December 31, 1974.

A.

As required by technical specifications IX.H, the UFTR subcommittee shall meet quarterly not to exceed 4 months and shall keep written records of its

!

meetings.

I Contrary to the above, no records were found of meetings held between April 4, 1978 and August 8, 1978.

-

.

This is a deficiency.

B.

As required by technical specification IX.I.3, the UFTR subcommittee shall make an intensive in-depth review of facility operations at least annually.

,

Contrary to the above, no such review of the facility operations during 1977 was performed.

This is an infraction.

1 o

,ifI g(L I

.

.

.

.

'o, UNITED STATES

!

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

,

,

g s

REGION il

o 101 MARIETTA ST N.W sulTE 3100 o

ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303

.....

Report No. 50-83/79-02 Licensee: University of Florida 202 Nuclear Sciences Center

-

Gainesville, Florida 32601 Facility Name: University of Florida Training Reactor License No. R-56 Inspector:

b*

///18/7 f C. Julian" Date Signed Approved by:

//>pM

//-/74 -PS P M f B6rnet W Acting Section Chief, RONS Branch Date Signed Date of Inspection: October 22-25, 1979 Areas Inspected

.

This routine unannounced inspection involved 28 inspector-hours onsite in the areas of reactor operator requalification program, surveillance, UITR subcom-mittee review and audit, operating logs and records, experiments, and procedures.

i Results Of the 6 areas inspected, no items of noncompliaace or deviations were identi-fled in 5 areas; 2 apparent items of noncompliance were found in one area.

l (/-

'"

,.

bO ply-I 9 y2-

/

- --

.

.

.

DETAILS 1.

Persons Contacted Licensee Employees i

  • Dr. E. E. Carroll, Acting Chairman, Department of Nuclear

Engineering Sciences

  • Dr. G. R. Dalton, Professor of Nuclear Engineering and Chairman, Reactor Safety Committee
  • Dr. N. J. Diaz, Professor of Nuclear Engineering and Reactor

!

Supervisor s

  • T. J. Bauer, Radiation Control Officer H. Gogun, Senior Reactor Operator l

G. W. Fogle, Reactor Operator i

J. G. Cantlin, Reactor Operator l

H. Norton, Radiological Safety Technician Other licensee employees contacted included various office personnel.

  • Attended exit interview 2.

Exit Interview The inspection scope and findings were summarized on October 25, 1979 with those persons indicated in Paragraph I above.

The inspector presented to the licensee representatives the findings as detailed below and stated the two items of noncompliance. Licensee representatives acknowledged the items of noncompliance, and committed to take action to close the outstanding items described in paragraphs 6 and 10 below.

3.

Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings Unresolved item 78-04-01 from a previous inspection was determined to be an item of noncompliance as detailed in paragraph 7 below. Unresolved item 78-04-02 is closed as described in paragraph 10 below.

4.

Unresolved Items Unresolved items are matters about which more information is required to determine whether they are acceptable or may involve noncompliance or

,

i deviations. A new unresolved item identified during this inspection is discussed in paragraph 10.

5.

Reactor Operator Requalification Program l

The inspector reviewed the records of reactor operator requalification efforts for the calendar years 1978 and 1979 through the dates of inspection.

As of July 1, 1979 the licensee has put into operation a revised requalifica-tion program. The licensee notified the NRC Operator Licensing Branch

,

_ _ _ _

_

. _ _

-.

.

.

,

.

-2-(OLB) of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation by letter of June 8,1979 that the revised program would be implemented on July 1,1979, but no i

l formal approval by OLB was obtained by the licensee prior to the change.

l By telephone conversation on 10/29/79 with the chief of OLB the inspector i

determined that OLB feels that the revision did not decrease the scope, time allotted for the program or frequency in conducting different parts of the program.

Thus, this revision to the reactor operator requalification program was not in violation of the regulations of 10CFR 50.54 (1-1).

'

No deviations or items of noncompliance were identified in this area.

6.

Surveillance The inspector reviewed a representative sample of records of surveillance tests required by the technical specifications which were performed between June 1978 and the inspection dates. The following items were of particular concern.

On 9/29/79, during a test of control blade drop times, safety rod number 2 required 1.050 seconds to insert.

This exceeds the I second maximum drop time prescribed by the technical specifications Table II. The test was repeated 5 times but blade drop times were satisfactory with a maximum drop time of 0.642 seconds. The reactor was left shutdown while the matter was investigated and reviewed with the UFTR Subcommittee. The licensee concluded that an electrical failure of the fully withdrawn blade position indication limit switch allowed the control blade to overtravel slightly on withdrawal.

The control blades are of the semaphore design and the licensee concluded that the blade overtravel caused the pillow block bearings supporting the control blade drive shaft to momentarily stick. The bearings were replaced and the control blade drop time satisfactorily tested prior to resumption of operation.

The inspector discussed this event with licensee representatives and deter-mined that a prompt report was not made to the NRC because the licensee did not construe this event to be an " abnormal occurance". Technical specifica-tion IX.L.3 states that abnormal occurances include a violation of the

'

l technical specifications. The licensee felt that this situation was not a violation of the technical specifications because the reactor was shut down for several days prior to the test for modifications to the control rod drive motor wiring and thus the reactor was not actually operated in viola-tion of the blade drop time limit. The inspector discussed with the reactor supervisor interpretations of technical specification reporting requirements, and stated that future events of this nature should be promptly reported.

i The inspector noted that no written procedure is in use for test S-2

" Reactivity Measurements" which measures control-blade worths, shut down margin, and reactivity intertion rate.

The inspector reviewed the results of previous tests during 1978 and 1979 and discussed the methods with licensee representatives to determine that the tests were being conducted properly. Technical specification IX.K defines the type of written proce-dures to be maintained, but does not specifically require written approved

-

-

.

.

,

.-

-3-procedures for surveillance required by technical specifications. Licensee representatives agreed with the inspector that a written procedure is needed for this test and committed to develop one. The inspector stated that the procedure will be reviewed during a future inspection.

(50-83/79-02-01)

No deviations or items of noncompliance were identified in this area.

,

7.

UFTR Subcommittee Review and Audit The inspector reviewed the available minutes from meetings of the University of Florida Training Reactor (UFTR) Subcommittee of the University Radiation Control (URC) Committee held during 1978 and 1979. The following discrepan-cies were found.

No minutes were found for meetings held between 4/4/78 and 8/8/78 although it appears that monthly meetings were held. Technical specification IX.H states that the subcommittee shall meet quarterly not to exceed 4 months,

and that the subcommittee shall keep written records of its meetings.

Although the subcommittee chairman has hand written personal notes of meetings, these do not suffice for a written record because without relying

on the memory of those present, it cannot be determined what subcommittee actions were taken. Failure to keep the required adequate records is an item of noncompliance (50-83/79-02-02).

j During a previous inspection on 6/8/78, an NRC inspector noted that the annual audit of reactor operations for 1977 by the subcommittee was assigned to four individuals on 12/21/77 and as of 6/8/78, had not been completed.

During that inspection, the licensee committed to complete that audit within 30 days, and to complete all future audits within 30 days of the assignment dates.

The item was left unresolved. During the current in-i spection, it was determined that the 1977 audit was not completed within 30 days after 6/8/78.

A memo dated 12/5/78 to the UITR Subcommittee states

,

that the last segment of the four part audit was performed on 8/6/78.

Further review of records yielded no statement in the UFTR Subcommittee

!

minutes that the 1977 audit was finally complete. Additionally there was no response to the audit findings from the reactor staff. Thus, it appears that contrary to technical specification IX.I.3 no intensive in-depth review of facility operations was completed for the year 1977. This unre-solved item 78-04-01 from the previous inspection is therefore changed to i

an item of noncompliance (50-83/79-02-03).

The inspector noted that the 1978 audit was completed during January 1979, and included a response by i

the acting reactor supervisor with proposed corrective action.

8.

Operating Logs and Records The inspector reviewed representative segments of the console data sheet for the period of June 1978 to the date of inspection. All entries reviewed appeared adequate. The inspector reviewed the maintenance log entries for

.

-, - - - - - -

- -

_,.,

-

l l

.

-

.,.

-4-

,

,

1978 and 1979.to date with satisfactory findings. The present facility organization and staffing appears consistent with technical specification

requirements.

No deviations or items of noncompliance were identified in this area.

9.

Experiments

.

The inspector reviewed records of the required review and approval of various experiments conducted during 1978 and 1979. Particular attention was given to the circumstances of an event of 7/31/78 in which tritium was inadvertently released from an experiment into the reactor cell. After

review by the UFTR subcommittee and others, more specific detailed procedures were developed for the loading and unloading of similar experiments in the through tube facility.

No deviations or items of noncompliance were found in this area.

10.

Procedures The inspector reviewed the status of the facility standard operating proceduras (SOP) as of the date of inspection.

Procedure F.2 " Temporary Procedures" was implemented on 3/6/79 in response to unresolved item 78-04-02 from a previous NRC inspection. The procedure appears adequate and unresolved item 78-04-02 is closed.

l The inspector noted that procedure E.3.a " Operation of City Water Cooling Systems" was incorporated on 5/22/79 as a temporary procedure.

E.3.a was subsequently approved as a permanent procedure on 6/5/79, but was not removed from the list of temporary procedures.

Licensee representatives stated that this would be done promptly and the inspector stated that this will be reviewed at a later inspection (50-83/79-02-04).

The following three items of concern were discussed with licensee representa tives.

Procedure A.5 " Experiments" was changed in a very minor way on 2/7/79 a.

by the Acting Reactor Supervisor as allowed by Technical Specification IX.K. No record was found, however, of a subsequent UFTR Subcommittee review of tha change.

l b.

Procedure C.1 " Irradiated Fuel Handling" was changed to revision 3 on 3/20/78 as evidenced by the UFTR subcommittee chairman's signature.

No subcommittee minutes were found, however, to document their review.

Procedures D.4, D.5, D.6 and D.7 were signed by the UFTR Subcommittee c.

Chairman on 2/12/78. No subecmmittee minutes were found, however, to i

_

-_

.

.

-

-

.

..

-s-

.

document their review on or prior to this date.

Subcommittee minutes of 2/21/78, in fact, indicate a review of these procedures after their approval date by the chairman.

During the inspection the required documentation could not be found to demonstrate subcommittee action on these items.

The subcommittee documents being in a state of disarray contributed to the problem.

The inspector stated that the issue of adequate subcommittee review will remain unresolved Pending the licensee's review and organization of the existing documentation (50-83/79-02-05).

11.

Review of Previous Outstanding Items Open item 77-01-08 from a previous inspection called for the licensee to complete Standard Operating Procedures E.2, E.4, and E.5.

The inspector noted that E.2 and E.5 are finished but that E.4 on auxiliary systems remains to be completed. The licensee agreed to identify safety related auxiliary systems, and implement procedures for them by July 1,1980.

(50-83/79-02-06)

.

The inspector verified that the licensee has received copies of NRC bulletin 78-08, " Radiation Levels from Fuel Element Trsnsfer Tubes", and responded

.ppropriately. The licensee also has received for information NRC circulars 78-03, " Packaging Greater than Type A Quantities of Low Specific Activity Radioactive Material for Tran port", and 79-08, " Attempted Extortion-Low Enrichment Uranium".

The inspector verified that the licensee has installed a backflow preventer in the city water supply line. Additionally, the licensee now uses a well as the normal supply of secondary system cooling water.

__

- - - - -

_ _ _ _ _

. - _. _.

. _ -

  • pe ncg[o, UNITED sT ATES

/

,

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

,

,

f n

$,

,E nEGION V 1990 N. CAllFORNI A DOULEVARD

$

.;

%, *

g'

SUITE 202, WALNUT CRE E K PLAZA WALNUT CREEK. CALIFORNIA 94596

}

  • e..*

.t

>

.

!!AY 5 1980 Docket flos.70-115 50-139 University of Washington College of Engineering 369 Loew Hall Mail Stop - FH-10 Seattle, Washington 98195 Attention: Dr. D. Carlson, Dean Gentlemen:

Subject:

Inspection of University of Washington This refers to the inspection conducted by G. Hamada and A. Wieder of this office on April 14-15, 1980 of activities authorized under NRC License Nos. SitM-108 and R-73.

It also refers to the discussion of our inspection findings with Professor W. Chalk and Mr. W. Miller at the conclusion of the inspection.

The areas examined during the inspection included your program for controlling and accounting for special nuclear material pursuant to applicable provisions of Part 70, Title 10 Code of Federal Regulations, and specific requirements of flRC License flos. SNM-108 and R-73. Within these areas, the inspection consisted of selective examinations of procedures and records, interviews with reactor personnel and observations

-

-

-

-

by the inspectors.

fio items of noncompliance with HRC requirements were identified within

the scope of this inspection.

In accordance with Section 2.790(d) of the NRC's " Rules' of Practice,"

Part 2, Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, documentation of findings of your control and accounting procedures for safeguarding special SY s, goOpO

-

l

my---

--

l

/(o

.

.,

.

y,

.

= ;

--- __,

.

'

+f

'

.

=

.

University of k'ashington-2-M

$ JSM nuclear materials are exempt from disclosure; therefore, the inspection report will not be placed in the PU'-lic Document Room and will receive limited distribution.

Sincerely, 1'

'

,

. R.'llorderhaug, Safeguards Branch Enclosure:

IE Inspection Report flo.

70-115/80-01 (IE-V-382)

50-139/80-02

.

.

...

.

.

h

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=IR_05000139/1978002&oldid=4498858"