IR 05000005/1993001
| ML20034G908 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Pennsylvania State University |
| Issue date: | 03/05/1993 |
| From: | Dragoun T, Holmes S, Mark Miller NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20034G907 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-005-93-01, 50-5-93-1, NUDOCS 9303120082 | |
| Download: ML20034G908 (4) | |
Text
_ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _
.
.
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COhBilSSION
REGION I
Report No.
50-05\\93-01 Docket No.
50-05 License No.
B-2
Licensee:
The Pennsylvania State University University Park. Pennsylvania 16802 Facility Name:
Penn State Breareale Reactor Inspection At:
State College. Pa Inspection Conducted:
February 10-11. 1993
-
Inspectors:
/
Stephen Holmes, Radiation Specialist, Effluents dite Radiation Protection Section (ERPS), Facilities Radiological Safety and Safeguards Branch (FRSSB)
W ] W 7L.
3 -V-9.5 Thomas Dragoun, project Scientist, ERPS,FRSSB date-7bb 3-Y- 9.3 Approved By:
Marie Miller, Chief, ERPS, FRSSB, date Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards Areas Insoected: The areas examined included staffing, reactor logs, operating procedures, operator requalification program, surveillances, control of experiments, maintenance and design changes, and oversight.
I Results: The. staffing level and professional expertise was sufficient to perform the duties-j required by the license and written procedures, documentation, and record keeping were
!
I excellent. Committee participation and oversight were good, and the detailed minutes of committee meetings were noteworthy. No safety concerns or violations of regulatory
requirements were identified.
-l l
9303120082 930305 i
PDR ADOCK 05000005 i
O PDR i
-
---______-_
_
.-__
.
DETAILS
'
1.0 Persons Contacted
- T. Flinchbaugh, Operations Manager
- E. Klevans, Head, Nuclear Engineering Department K. Rudy, Maintenance Supervisor
- M. Voth, Reactor Director
!
- Attended the Exit meeting on January 20,1993.
2.0 Staffine r
The current staff consists of seven permanent staff and three interns. Eight members
,
hold Senior Reactor Operator licenses, one a Reactor Operator license, and another in t
training. All have pertinent science degrees and experience in the field. The Operations Manager and the Maintenance Supervisor each have twenty six years of
"
experience at the facility. The licensee was cognizant of the possible loss of such long term staff and it's effect on facility operations. The staff is qualified and possesses the technical expertise to perform the duties required by the license. No safety concerns or violations were identified.
3.0 Reactor Logs
,
Reactor operating records are required by Section 6.7.1 of the Technical
,
'
Specifications (TS). The inspector audited these records, interviewed operators, and observed uses oflogs during reactor operations. Records of power level, operating periods, unusual events, calibration and maintenance procedures, installed experiments, and start-up and shut-down checks were being kept. Reactor operating records and logs were being maintained as required by TS and written procedures.
I Within the scope of this inspection, no safety concerns were noted.
i 4.0 Operatine Procedures
'
l I
Written procedures are required by Section 6.3 of the TS, and such procedures are required to be reviewed and approved prior to use. The inspector reviewed the operational procedures, interviewed staff members, and observed reactor start-ups and operators' use of check sheets. Written procedures were available for all items required by TS. The procedures were clear, concise, and, through the use of a
standard format, easily followed. Each page of the procedures was signed by the i
proper persons to indicate review and approval. Although the authority to approve l
changes was not sprifically indicated, procedure changes were being reviewed adequately by the facility director or operations manager. The licensee stated that the
>
authority to approve changes would be specifically delineated in the appropriate procedure. A full review of the procedures was performed biennially, which is i
sufficient for the facility. The latest change to the Safety Analysis Report included a
!
misstatement of this review period to be annually. The licensee stated that this would be corrected the next time the SAR was updated. Implementation of and adherence to the procedures was good. Overall the licensee maintained excellent written
]
procedures. Within the scope of this inspection no safety concerns were noted.
i
- i
.
.
5.
Optrator Reauallikallon Program
[
An examination of the trainii.g records and exams, and interviews with operators indicated that s'l current operators successfully completed the operational and written
-
exams, emergency procedures, abnormal events, and the minimum operator
manipulations, as required by the NRC approved requalification plan. Exam
,
questions demonstrated good technical depth. The most recent requalification exam
'
taken was the NRC pmetored qualification exam given to new personnel at the i
facility. He use of a matrix for tracking qualifications, medical exams, and license
,
renewal was good. The requalification program was being implemented adequately to ensure appropriate training of the operators.
6.0 Surveillantes
.
I ne inspector reviewed sel-ctM records and procedures for the conduct of j
surveillances required by TS Section 4.0. All surveillances were completed at the
,
required intervals while some, such as pool water level alann and fire hose inspection, were performed more frequently or in greater depth than required. This l
i represents a good licensee initiative. Adcitionally, a matrix was usea to track required surveillance intervals and completion of such. Surveillances were conducted
,
under actual operating conditions and provided a high confidence that the system i
would operate as designed. However, the inspector noted that there was no tolerance
specified for the computer displayed parameters. The licensee stated that this matter
would be resolved thmugh discussions with the console manufacturer. Within the
,
scope of this review, the licensce's program for surveillances was found to be
'
effective.
7.0 Gntrator Exocriments
.!
The licensec's program for the control of experiments was reviewed with respect to the requirements in TS 6.4, TS 3.7, and Standing Operating Pmcedure-5. The inspector reviewed the appmvals and precautions incorporated in experiments. The technical reviews were found to be excellent, good controls and limitations were imposed, and a high level of safety was cchieved. The forms used to approve experiments were safety oriented and provided good guidance to the reviewer on experiment lic.itations. Observation of a control system experiment &monstrated
.
excellent coordination and communication between the operator und the experimenter as noted in the experiment approval. New experiments or classes of experiments of safety significance were reviewed by the Penn State ': actor Safety Committee i
(pSRSC) as required. Within the scope of this review no safety concerns were noted, i
,,
c
/':'
I
.
h
a
- 8.0 Maintenance and Desien Channes I
i The inspector examined maintenance and design change records applicable to procedures AP-12 (changes) and AP-13 (maintenance). Procedures and -
!
documentation logs for both changes and maintenance were adequate. The staff was aware of the requirements and properly implemented maintenance and design changes.
Changes were reviewed by the facility director or, if of safety significance, referred to the PSRSC as required by procedures. Both were properly noted in the reactor log book as required. No safety concerns were noted.
9.0 Oversicht
-
The inspector reviewed the PSRSC's minutes for the past two years and the last two independent audits. The committee's quarterly meeting schedule and broad membership satisfied TS and facility procedure requirements. Review of the minutes ir.dicated the committee was active in pw/iding appropriate guidance, direction and oversight to the safety program and ensured suitable use of the reactor. Participation in reviews and evaluation of the quarterly operations summery was good. Follow-up on committee questions and recommendation was excellent. The audits were pertinent
,
and technically suitable. Recommendations were evaluated and followed-up as
,
needed. The committee minutes were clear, sufficiently detailed, and an excellent record of the safety oversight of reactor operations. The committee performed it's duties as required by the license and TS.
i 4.0 Exit Interview The inspectors met with the licensee representatives listed in Section 1.0 on February 11,1993 and summarized the scope and findings of this inspection.
.
-
..
-
.
.