IR 05000027/1989001

Insp Rept 50-027/89-01 on 890524-26.No Violations or Deviations Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Reactor Operations Program,Including Reactor Operations,Health Physics & Emergency Planning & Preparedness

ML20245C849
Person / Time
Site:	Washington State University
Issue date:	06/15/1989
From:	Garcia E, Andrea Johnson, North H NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V)
To:
Shared Package
ML20245C841	List: IR 05000027/1989001 ML20245C838
References
50-027-89-01, 50-27-89-1, IEIN-87-022, IEIN-87-22, IEIN-89-009, IEIN-89-9, NUDOCS 8906260307
Download: ML20245C849 (7)

Text

_ _ _ _ _

E

+ . ,

,

-

.-

.c

'

.

'

,

U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION-

<

REGION V Y

.c, '

,

,

_

Y 'h Report No. S0-27/89-01 Doc'ket No. 50-27

'

Licerise No. R-76 + .

,

f Licensee: -Washington State. University Research Reactor: Nuclear,, Radiation Cente .

.

Pullman; Washington 99163 x

Facility Name: Research Reactor: ' Nuclear Radiation Center , ,

' Inspection'at: Pullman,Nashington

Inspe$ tion' Conducted: May 24-26- 1989-

, 2

'

Inspect'or: ~~

/

'

Er'

! , H. S.- Nor , en or Radiation Specialist Date Signed

,7 A.'D. Johns T nforcement 0fficer

'

kk Dit;e (Signed Approved by: a E. M. GarciaT Acting Chief-4 //.f [ # _

Ddte/ Signed Facilities Radiological Protection'Section y

Summary:

Inspection on May 24-26, 1989 (Report No. 50-27/89-01)

Area: Inspected: Routine unannounced inspection by regionally based-inspectors of the reactor operations program; iricluding reactor! operations, health physics, emergency planning and preparedness,' transportation activities, follow-up items. and exit intervie Inspection procedures 30703, 40750, 83743, 86740 and 92717 were addresse Results: In the five areas inspected, no violations or deviations were identifie The licensee's programt, were capable of meeting their' safety objective $k ${fy5 y c

,

.

'

'\ - 1 h

. .

- . i e

.

. .

.

.

DETAILS Persons Contacted

• W. E. Wilson, Associate Director, Nuclear Radiation Center

• J. A. Neidiger, Reactor Supervisor, Senior Reactor Operator (SRO)

D. D. Barbee, DVM, former Interim Director, Nuclear Radiation Center R. H. Filby, Ph.D. , Chairman, Department of Chemistry B. Bunce, Reactor Technician, SRO 1J. Jewel, Reactor Technician, Reactor Operator (RO)

M. Scott, Head of Technical Services, Nuclear Radiation Center

• Denotes those individuals attending the exit intervie . Reactor Operations (40750) General The inspection established that reactor operations were consistent with the information provided in the licensee's annual reports of 1987 and 1988. The inspectors observed reactor operation including startup and shutdow No deficiencies were identif'r The reactor facility continues to provide support for irradiations

~

and research programs, Organization The organizational structure for the reactor facility was as  !

described in Section 6.2 and 6.3 of the Technical Specifications j (TS). Dr. R. Filby, former Director of the Nuclear Radiation Center 1 (Center) resigned that position to accept the Chairmanship of. the l Chemistry Department. effective April 1,.1988. Dr. D. Barbee, from  !

the veterinary medicine faculty was appointed interim Director, l effective May 1, 1988. Dr Barbee resigned his interim assignment )

effective May 18, 1989. Dr. W. C. Rayburn, Associate Vice Provost l for Research, was designated as the new interim Director. The i University has announced an opening for an individual, experienced in research reactor supervision and management, at the SRO level, to be the Director of the Center. The present Associate Director has l announced his intention to retire as of June 30, 1989. No other changes in the reactor operations staff were contemplated at the -

time of the inspectio Shortly before the commencement of the subject inspection the-Region V office of the USNRC became aware of an allegation concerning a security matter. During the inspection the inspectors interviewed present and former facility staff members as a part of a follow-up of the allegatio The inspectors found the allegation to be without merit and established that no threat to the-facility j existe ;

f

'

,,

_'___---------.__------_--_- - - - - - - - - - - - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - -- --- J

____ _

. .

The division of radiation protection responsibilities between the reactor operations staff and the University Radiation Safety Office, which is active with respect to the Washington State licensed program, remains as described in Inspection Report No. 50-27/87-0 The licensee's organization appears to be capable of the safe use-and direction of the reactor facilit Review and Audit The Reactor Safeguards Committee (RSC) was assigned review and audit responsibilities in TS Section Review of the records of RSC meeting minutes and audit. records established that the committee had met or exceeded the requirements for meetings and reviews and audits specified in the T The audits were adequate for safe operation of the facilit Corrective Actions for Unusual Events and Occurrences The licensee had reported no unusual events or occurrences since the last inspectio Discussion with the licensee's staff and examination of records identified no matters which should have been reported, Experiments Discussion with licensee personnel and an examination of the records of experiments conducted since the last inspection established that no new experiments had been approved or conducted. The scope of experiments performed were consistent wit.h previous approvals and the T The records of completed experiments were maintained in three volumes identified as Sharing (involving work for another university or college), University (Washington State University),

and Commercia An examination of the Irradiation Request Forms showed that the irradiations had involved various animal products, mineral samples (geological samples), and organic and inorganic chemicels or metals. In connection with the operation of the reactor, foils and wires had also been irradiated. The record review established that the Shared experiments had been reviewed last on July 14, 1988. A total of 19 experiments were addressed in the University record and 8 in the Commercial record. Discussions with the licensee's staff established that no changes to the facility, experiments or SOP's necessitating a safety evaluation pursuant to 10 CFR 50.59 had occurre The licensee had established an administrative limit for pulses more conservative than that imposed by the TS. The TS limit was $2.50, however, the licensee's limit was $2.00, based on evaluation of the fuel damage observed at the Texas A & M reactor. The licensee plans to request amendment of the TS when their evaluation is coraplet _ - - . . ..

- .

.

The licensee documented the results of calculations of-the maximum power density in core 32A, the current mixed standard-FLIP cor The calculatlans showed the value to be 18.9 kw/ rod which was less than the limiting value of 22 kw/ rod identified in the 1979 SA Site Tour u The facility was found to be arderly and well maintaine Records-of all operators' reactor operating time were maintained. The records established that all operators had satisfied the requirements for'

.the minimum operating time and the required number of checkouts, startups and shutdowns-since the lest inspectio The review of operating procedures identified no inconsistencies from the as-built system. It appeared that fuel handling could be done safely in accordance with procedures. Tagouts and jumper controls were not addressed. During the tour, confirmatory surveys were performed using an ion chamber survey peter, NRC-009163, due'for calibration September 16, 198 No concerns were identified. It was noted that postings were found to be consistent with the requirements of i 10 CFR 20.203, Erargency Systems The operators verify that the emergency alarm system is operable by weekly verification with the campus police to assure that alarms are properly received. Sensors are checked on a monthly basis. The campus police participate in an annual walk through of the facilit Fire detection systems were tested by the campus fire department twice a year in addition to a check of fire extinguishers. Campus fire department personnel participate in a semiannual facility walk throug Records Review The weekly, monthly, quarterly and annual maintenance summaries as maintained in the " Preventive Maintenance Checklist for 1989" and

".. 1988" were examined. No failures to perform required maintenance and tests at required intervals were identified. The following data represent a partial summary of the data examined: ,

i Parameter Units Range 1988 Range 1989 Conductivity pmhos/cm 0.47-0.76' O.61-0.75 pH 5.23-6.19 5.12-6.22 Shutdown margin $ -3.14-to -3.97 -3.75-to -3.77 Rod Drop Times ms longest of 1,2 & 3 562 557 (April) ,'

Pulse

'

687 843 (April)

Pulse test Number 822 and 827 832

i

_ . - - _ _ _ _ _ . __ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _

-

v- , 3; ,

.

y

,

7 '

p ,

, ,

to ,

' 'g

+ "

.

<

+. ,

,-;

4  !

!

-

. + l

'

,

-

'

'

,

..

.!';

.

-The maintenance. records contained in'" Maintenance Log Vol. 1 .0.8";. -

were examined. The individual . records were very brief, however, thel

-

log referred to the individua1> Equipment Maintenance-Record book which contained detailed information . Log entries were signed 'off '

by the Reactor'Superv.isor indicating that a review had been- q performe ;

l

' Procedures l

. .l The inspection established that the licensee's Standard Operating L; Procedures (S0P),. required by-TS Section 6.8, were maintained and- .l'

changes were reviewed.by the RSC as required by TS Section 6. The procedures were located in the control' roo '

.

q

'

'Startup and shutdown of the reactor using SOP-4," Standard Proc'edure'Y for Startup, Operation and Shutdown of. the : Reactor',', was_ observe No deficiencies i':then procedures or operations'were. identifie The licensee's Administrative Procedures required approval of new and. amended procedures by the Reactor Supervisor ~and the Assistan Director prior to implementatio RSC reviews were performed at the time of the quarterly audit Annual-reviewfof i

the' procedures by the operating staff was required and. documented. 50P-33," Standard:

Procedure for Offsite Shipment of Radioactive Materials",can P-34," Standard' Procedure.for the Transfer of Nonfuel Devicehvand- R Experimental. Apparatus into and out;of the Reactor. Pool", were- lD reviewe l

. Requalification Trainin The licensee had not conducted the' biennial written requalification examination at the time of.the inspection.' The exam was scheduled

. for later infthe summer. The licensee was maintaining records of R0 and SRO reactor operation and facility and safety reviews by the facility operating staff and of-training receive ) . Surveillance ,

' '

Surveillance records, documented in the " Reactor Log", were examine for the ' periods March 17-26,-1988,.and January 27-May 18, 198 <

It was noted that higher than normal fuel temperatures were' observed' 'I February 6-13, 1989, 361 -353 C, approximately.-14*C higher tha , "j normal at 1 Mw steady state; The' licensee had determined that the anomaly was apparently due to thermal stratification in the pool due' ,

'toLcold weathe Other ope"ating parameters noted in the Log were-  :

identified in Report Section 3.h. Records; The Log was'well . n

'

. maintained, complete and had been signed by either an RO or SRO. 'It q was noted that all'the required surveillance ~had been completed and' ' '

'

documente [

,

,

.g l

'

_

In these' areas the' licensee's program was a'dequate for safe j operation of the facilit No violations or deviations'were j

, identified.' '

, a l

'

.

!

' - -

'

. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .

_ - _ _ _ _ _ _ .

,

,

. . .

.

c

.! halth Physics (40750 and 83743) Posting It was noted that Forms NRC-3 were appropriately posted. Current ;j copies of .the Form, were provided to the . licensee at the time of the' <

inspection, which were posted in place of the existing. forms during the inspection. Posting of restricted areas, racliation areas' and radioactive materials storage areas were consistent with the requirements of 10 CFR 20.20 Personnel Monitoring i

Personnel were provided with film badges and finger rings by the campus radiation safety organization. Records for all members of the reactor staff were examined for 1987 and 1988. All exposures were less than the limits specified in 10 CFR 20.10 The highest exposures were 100 and 90 mrem whole body and 930 and 380 mrem extremity in'1987 and 1988, respectively. The licensee maintained prior occupational exposure information on forms consistent with the requirements of 10 CFR 20.10 Surveys During the facility tour a survey was performed with an NRC instrument as noted in Report Section 2.f. The log ~ identified-as

" Daily Survey / Daily Swipe Log, Liquid Effluent Release Records, Personnel Exposure Records 0.13", was examine The portions of the log addressing Daily Surveys / Swipe records, monthly neutron surveys and Holdup Tank Release Data Log were examined. No significant differences from the results of the inspectors facility survey were identifie The licensee's health physics program applicable to the reactor facility appeared adequate to protect the health and safety'of the staff and publi No violations or deviations.were identifie )

! Emergency Planning and Preparedness (40750)

The report of an Emergency Drill, conducted' June 8,.1988, was exam'ine The drill involved'the transportation of an injured and possibly I contaminated person to the hospital. A post. drill critique was ~

conducted. The licensee documented the: review of the' current' operating and emergency procedures by the reactor operations staff, during the period. March-April 198 The tests of the facility alarm systems and interface familiarization of emergency response personnel with the reactor facility were previously identified in Report Section" The'

i emergency preparedness program was adequate for the safe operation of the- ' 1 L ,

facility.

i Transportation Activities (86740)

The licensee disposes of radioactive material by transfer to the l

' Washington State licensed progra The licensee's records of shipment of l

)

l i

.-__ _ __:: _____ -____ ____ --_ ______ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . ._ _ - _J

__

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - -

.

. . .

.

-

.

'

irradiated materials to other universities and commercial customers were examine Shipping records for 1988 and 1989 were examined. The documents supporting the shipments were found to be complete and no l concerns were identified. The transportation program was adequate for l the safe operation of the facilit . Information Notices (92717)

Receipt and review of Information Notices 87-22: Operator Licensing Requalification Examinations at Nonpower Reactors, and 89-09: Credit for Control Rods Without Scram Capability in the Calculation of the Shutdown Margin, was verified. No concerns were identifie . Exit Interview (30703}

The scope and findings of the inspection were discussed with the individuals denoted in Report Section 1. The licensee was informed that no violations or deviations had been identified. It was the inspectors conclusion that the facility was being operated in a safe and conservative manne ___ _ _ _ _ _ _