IR 05000027/1997201
| ML20199A463 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Washington State University |
| Issue date: | 01/16/1998 |
| From: | NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20199A451 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-027-97-201, 50-27-97-201, NUDOCS 9801270223 | |
| Download: ML20199A463 (13) | |
Text
'
..
.
.
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION Docket No:
50-027 License No:
R 76 Report No:
50-027/97 201 Licensee:
Washington State University Facility:
Washington State University TRIGA Reactor Location:
Nuclear Radiation Center Roundtop Dr.
Pullman, Washington 99164 Dates:
October 27 31, 1997
>
'
Inspector:
Stephen W. Holmes, Reactor inspector Approved by:
Sey.nour H. Weiss, Director Non Power Reactors and Decommissioning Project Directorate
- ) -
A
7
'
. _ _ _.
_ _
-_ ___. _ _ _ _ _. _ _ ____ _-._.
,
.
.
'
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This routine, announced inspection consisted of the review of selected conditions and
records since the last inspection, verification of corrective actions previously committed to by the licensee, and related discussions with licenses personnel. The inspection was conducted in accordance with the guidance of NRC Inspection Manual.
The reactor was being maintained and operated as required by the license and applicaNe
,
regulations. All reactor staff positions were acceptably filled in accordance with Technical i
Specification (TS) requirements. The licensee made a number commitments on enhancing
'
methods of taking smears, calibration of their liquid scintillation counter, and other reactor
,
operations. One non-cited violation was issued for failure to list major isotopes on shipping papers and labels as determined by the formula in 49CFR Part 173.433(f)
'
I
!
.
I P
e s
,
_
-e r e w, -
- --r
.,an----
n n
-,,, - -
,w-e,
,
n
,-
e-,
-- - -,
ie
.
i
.
Report Details Summary of Plant Status The reactor was being operated a few days per week in support of research and training orograms.
1.
Operations
Conduct of Operations 01.1 Reactor Staffino a. Inspection Scope (Inspection Procedu.
49001)
The inspector reviewed reactor staff qual Jations, operations logs and records, selected events, and interviewed staff.
b. Observations and Findings Licensed staff consisted of the Director, Nuclear Radiation Center (DIR), the Reactor Supervisor (RS), and two or three Reactor Operators IRO) and Senior Reactor Operators (SRO). The reactor staff satisfied the training and experience required by the Technical Specifications (TS). Operation logs and records cor firmed that shif t staffing met the minimum requirements for duty and on-call personnel, c. Conclusioy The operations staffing of the research reactor satisfied TS requirements.
01.2 Control and Performance of Experiments a. inspection Scope (Inspection Procedure 69001)
.
The inspector reviewed approved experiment records, reactor iog experimental data, RSC minutes, observed a number of experimentalirradiations from insertion to retrieval, and interviewed staff.
b. Observations and Findinas Experiments and changes to approved experiments had been reviewed and approved as required by TS.
Revicw of the experiment data in the reactor log and obse' 'tlon by the inspector of the experimental runs verified that experiments were constrained as required by the TS and experiment authorization, and were installed, performed, and removed as outlined in the experiment authorization end licensee's procedures.
.
_w_
.
u-m..___
-.._.
_
_ _
-
_ _
_ _ _ _. _ _._ _ _. _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _
-
'
,
'
i
.
-
.
v
c. Conclusions License control and performance of experiments met TS and licensee requirements.
01.3 Banctor Ocarations and Fuel Handlino
'
a Insnaction Scone (Insoection Procedure 69001)
The inspector interviewed staff, reviewrd reactor operations and fuellogs, and periodic checkout, start up and shu%w7 check!!sts. The inspector observed a full start up, shutdown, and ob', ved a 4 umber of experimentalirradiations from
,
insertion to retrieval, b. Observations and Findinos Reactor operations were implemented in accordance with written procedures and TS. Information on operational status was recorded in log books and checklists as required by procedures and TS. Use of maintenance and repair logs complied with procedures and met regulatory and licensee requirements.
Fuel movement and handling was infrequent. Data recorded for fuel movement was clear. Fuel movement, inspection, log keeping, and recording followed the f acility's procedures.
- c. Conclusl001 Reactor operations conformed to TS and licensee procedural requirements. Fuel I
handling, record maintenance, and documentation were accomplished as required by TS and licensee procedures. No safety concerns were identified.
Operations Procedures and Documentation 8.
Insnaction Scoos (Insoection Procedure 69001)
The inspector reviewed operating procedures and updates, reactor operating records and logs, and RSC minutes.
~ b. Observations and Findinos Written procedures required by the TS were available and used by the staff.
'
Implementation of and adherence to the procedures was acceptable. Procedure changes had been reviewed and approved as required.
Records of power level, operating periods, unusual events, calibration and
' maintenance procedures, installed experiments, and start up and shutdown checks were being kept. Also, fxords of SRO evaluations of unanticipated / unscheduled scrams was being kept as required.
,
,-,
,
-
.,,
,.--.--,,-+--,-y
.,
y.e-
_,
.
_
_ -.-___ _
_ _ _
_._. _ _ _ _._.
_ _ _ _ _.
_ __._ _ _
.
.
,
r
- 3-c. Conclusions Facility procedures satisfied TS requirements. Reactor operating records and logs were being maintained as required by TS.
Operator Training and Qualification Program a. Inspection Scope (Inspection Procedure 6900l}
The inspector reviewed requalification program records, NRC licenses, training records and interviewed staff.
.
b. Observations and Findinos
.
'
Currently licensed operators were successfully completing reactivity manipulations, and participating in the ongoing training as required by the NRC-
approved requalification plan. Review of records indicated that performance and
'
competence evaluations of the operators had been given as required. Past test questions covered the material prescribed by the program and demonstrated
technical depth Required quarterly operation hours were being tracked. Biennial medical exams had been performed as required, c. Conclusions T'te requalification program was being acceptably implemented. TS and NRC approved requalification plan requirements were met.
Organization and Administration a. Inspectior. Scope (Inspection Procedure 69001)
The inspector reviewed organization, staffing and administrative controls and interviewed management and staff.
b. Observations and Findinos Since the last inspection no functional changes in the management organization or administrative controls had been made, c. - Conclusions Organizational and administrative controls remain consistent with TS and license requirements and commitments.
.
.
_
.
-
_
.
__
- -
.
.
-_
.. _.
-
_
.-
_ _ _. _....
_. - - _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _____ _ _ _ _ _ _._. _. _._
.
.
E
.
I q.
'
Quality Assurance in Operations l
a. In.spection Scope (Inspection Procedure 69001)
[
!
The insgror reviewed RSC minutes, annual reviews, audits, and interviewed staff, r
b. Observations and Finc8'nge The rnesting schedule and membership satisfied (S requirements and the l
Coinmittee's procedural rules. Review of the minutes indicated the committee provided guidance, direction and oversight, and ensured suitable use of the reactor. The minutes provided a record of the safety oversight of reactor operations.
c. Conclusions The RSC performed its duties as required by license, TS, and administrative criterl.1.
11. Maintenance
,
M1 Conduct of Maintenance M1.1 Surveillances and Limitino Conditions for Operation a. Inspection Scope (Inspection Procedure 60001)
The inspector observed a number of tests, and reviewed selected surveillance records, data sheets and records of tests, licensee procedures, reactor logs,
checklists, periodic reports, and interviewed staff.
bi Observations and Findings Daily and other periodic checks, tests, and verifications for TS required limiting conditions for operations (LCO) were completed as required. All surveillance and LCO verifications were completed on schedule as required by TS and in
-
accordance with licensee procedures. All were within prescribed TS and
. procedure' parameters.
c. Conclusions-The licensee's program for surveillance and LCO confirmations satisfied TS requirements.
.
. -
-
.. -.
. - -.
..
..
.
-. - - -
- - - -
.
--
m
-
.
.
..
5-M2 Maintenance and Motorial Cordtion of Facilities and Equipment a. Inspection Scope (inspection Procedure 69001)
The inspector reviewed maintenance and reauor logs, RSC minutes, repair records, and observed f acility and equipment during an accompanied tour.
b. O_bservations and Findings Reactor maintenance was noted in a maintenance log and the reactor logbook as required by procedures. Routine / preventative maintenance was adequately controlled and documented, Unscheduled maintenance was routinely evaluated by use of a checklist to verify that it did not constitute a change or if it was that it posed no unreviewed safety question and was approved under 50.59 criteria.
c. Conclusions Maintenance logs, records, performance, and 50.59 reviews satisfied TG and procedure requirements.
Ill. Engineering E1 Conduct of Engineering, Design Changes a. Inspection Scope (Inspection Procedure 69001)
The inspector reviewed selected design change packages, associated procedures and drawings, logs, records, and RSC files. The inspector also interviewed statf.
b. Observations and Findings The licensee's design changes were reviewed, approved, implemented, tested, and controlled as required by TS, licensee procedures, and pertinent regulations, c. Conclusions -
Design changes satisfied TS and regulatory requirement.-
.
.
.
._
-. -
.
,
O I
..
!
6-IV. Mant Support
,
R1
- Radlological Protection and Chemistry Controls
R1.1 Radiation Protection Pos'tInos a.- Scope (Inspection Procedure 69001)
The inspector reviewed radiological cigns and postings, routine radiation surveys and observed the facility and equipment during accompanied tours.
l
'
b. Observations and Findings Postings at the Nuclear Radiation Center reactor were acceptable for the hazards
,
involved. The facility and radioactive material storage were secuted and p'operly i
posted. No unmarked or unsecured radioactive materials were evident. NRC Forms 3 were posted in appropriate areas in the f acility as were current notices to
- workers required by 10 CFR 19.
i c. Conclusions
Radiological postings satisfied regulatory requirements.
!
R1.2 Effluent Monitorina and Release
,';
a. Scope (Inspection Procedure 69001)
.
The inspector reviewed annual reports, release records, counting and analysis results, b. Observations and Findings
,
Gassous Releases were monitored and calculated as outlined in the Final Safety Analysis Report (FT, Aid and licence procedures,. adequately documented, and well within the annual dose constraint of 20.1101(d). Appendix B concentrations and-i TS limits..
Release of liquid effluents war infrequent. Records through October 1997 confirmed that releases met 10CFR Part 20.2003 and Appendix B limits.
'
c. Conclusions
!
- Effluent monitoring satisfied license and regulatory requirements.
_
_
,
, -if
,
s
.-
.
._
,
,,
-
.
_
. -
_ _ - _..
.
.
'
.
R1.3 Radiation Protection Surveys a. Scope (Inspection Procedure 69001)
The inspector observed a number health physic (HP) and reactor contamination and radiation area surveys, reviewed procedures and survey records, and interviewed staff.
b. Observations and Findinas_
Weekly, quarterly, and other periodic contamination or radiation w:veys were
'
performed as required by TS and Nuclear Radiation Center proceouses. These were conducted by reactor and university staff. Results were evaluated and corrective actions taken and documented when readings /rcsults exceeded set action levels, c. Conclusions Surveys were performed and documented as required by 10 CFR 20. TS and licensee requirements were met.
R1.4 Personnel Dosimetry a. Scope (Inspection Procedure 69001)
The inspector reviewed dosimetry records, licensee procedures, observed issuance of dosimetry, and interviewed staff, b. Observations and Findings hie licensee used a National Voluntary Laboratory Accreduation Program -
accredited vendor in process personnel thermoluminescent dosimetry. The
,
licensee's dosimetry program for declared pregnant women satisfied 10 CFR 20.1208 requirements. An examination of records for the past three years indicated that all exposures were within NRC limits, with most showing no exposure above background.
c. Conclut!ons Doses were in conformance with licensee and 10 CFR 20 limits.
-
---
~,.
_ _ _. _. _.
-_ -
_
_
-. -...
-. --
.
.
S-R2 Status of Radiation Protection and Control (RP&C) Facilities and Equipment t
Scope (Inspection Procedure 69001)
The inspector reviewed calibration, period!c checks, quality control, and test source certification records for radiation monitoring and counting lab instruments and interviewed HP staff.
b. Observations and Findings The calibration of the portable survey meters was performed in house by the licensee staffs. Calibration frequency met TS and licensee directives.
Calibratlan proceduros were consistent with American National Standards Institute or ths manufacturers' recommendations. Calibration and check sources were traceable to the NationalInstitutes of Standards and Technology. With one exception, radiation monitoring and counting lab instruments were also calibrated as recommended by ANSI or the manufacturer.
The liquiil scintillation counter is a new model whose's manuf acturer users Manuel lists no calibration other then a computer controlled daily startu o check / verification. Although these daily and actual counting results were consistent, the inspector could not determine if, as with other new computer controlled counters, this check along with the manuf actures annual servicing of the unit satisfied 10 CFR 20.1501(b). The RS stated that they would contact the manuf acturer and obtain the information on the recommended calibration. This will be reviewed during a future inspection as an Inspection Follow up Item (IFl 50-027/97 201-01).
Allinstruments checked were in calibration. Calibration records were in urder, c. Conclusions RP&C equipment was being maintained according to industry and equipment mar ufacturer standards Calibrations satisfied TS requirements.
R3 RP&C Procedures and Documentation a. Scope (Inspection Procedure 69001)
The inspector reviewed Radiation Protection Program (RPP) documentation and-various HP procedures and interviewed HP statf.
b. ObservNions and Findings HP procedures were available for those tssks arid items required by the TS, license, and facility directives. Changes were reviewed and approved as required.
'
Oversight and review were provided by the reactor and university staffs as required by TS and licansee procedures.
.
-.
. -. - - -
.-
.
-
.
--
..
-
. - -.
.-
-
- ---
-
-
.C
.
.g.
c. Conclusions The RPP satisfied the requirements of 10 CFR 20.1101. HP procedures and documentation were acceptable.
-
R 6.'
RP&C Organization arW Administration a. Scope (Inspection Procedure 69001)
The inspector reviewed radiation protection program documentation, the FSAR and the TS and interviewed staff.
b. Observations and Findings The campus cons'sts of tha Director, Rad!xion Safety Office, an Assistant Director, four HP technicians, and students. They provided support to the reactor as wel: as being responsible for the state license. Coordination of HP activities between the HP and mactor staffs was acceptable with little or no dNficulties between the reactor's NRC license requirements and the Nuclear -
Fwsearch Center's state license constrainments.
c. Conclusions HP staffing met TS, regulatory requirements and licensee commitments.
"
R8 Radioactive Material Transfer / Disposal a.
Inspection Scope (Inspection Procedure 69001)
,
The inspector observed transfer of irradiated material to the Department of Energy at Hanford, reviewed transfer checklists, shipping and disposal records, and interviewed staff
-
b.
Observations and Findings Production of radioactive waste at the facility was minimal. The small amount produced was handled under the campus waste disposal program. All transfers were recorded on the appropriate forms. Transfer documentation was kept on file as required and was acceptable.
.
>
Radioactive materlak produced by the reactor for use by the university staff or outside organizations were tracked as required. The reactor staff properly packaged, surveyed, and mleased materials to on-campus investigators, and to entities outside t-
.the university. Transfer uocumentation was kept on file as required. Transfer
- documentation with one exception was acceptabl..
.
.-
.
- -
-. -. - -. _ -
-
.~
-
-
.
.l
10-While the inspector observed the shipment packagirg, mark 8ng, labeling. and paperwork, he noticed that, although the analysis of the materialidentified two identified isotopes, only one had been recorded on the label and shipping papers. The inspector confirmed that until mid February 1997, the major isotopes had been documented on the labels and paperwork. The reactor staff stated that in January they started using the radiation safety office's shipping forms to be consistent in all shipment from the Nuclear Research Center. During this consolidation they believed they were told by radiation safety office staff that only one " isotope name" could be put on the package label and shipping papers. The inspector determined in discussion with both staffs that a mis-communication had occurred. Only one proper " shipping name" may be marked on the package and listed on the shipping papers. However the major isotopes present must be listed on the labels and shipping papers as determined by the formula in 49CFR Part 173.433(f). Calculations by the licensee and confirmed by the inspector showed that if the package was picked up within approximately six hours of the end of irradiation (i.e., the same day) both would have to be listed for this rectrring shipment. However if it was not made until the next
'
day only the single isotope listed would have been required.
Although many of these shipments were not picked up until the second day, the lict.nsee was unable to show that no shipments were made within the first six hours af ter irradiation. Albeit the f ailure to list major isotopes as required by 49CFR Part 173.433(f) is a violation, the safety significance was negligible as the external dose was from the longer lived isotope that was listed and the hazard from the unlisted short-lived materia! was internal only. The licensee updated their written procedures and provided instruction to the staff on 10 CFR and 49 CFR radioactive material shipping requirements (NCV 50-027/97-201-02).
c.
Conclusions Radioactive material was generally transferred and disposed of in accordance with licensee procedures, TS,10 CFR 49 and 10 CFR 20 requirements.
Based on the safety significance and corrective action by the licensee, the inspector identified and licensee corrected violation for f ailure to list major isotopes on shipping papers and labels as required by 49CFR Part 173.433(f), is being treated as a Non-Cited Violation, consistent with Section Vill.B.1 of the NRC Enforcement Policy.
V. Management Meeting _s X1 Exit Meeting Summary The inspector presented the inspection resuits to members of licensee management at the conclusion of the inspection on October 31,1997. The licensee acknowledged the findings presente _
s
.
.
- *--
PARTIAL LIST OF PERSONS CONTACTED-Licensee -
B, Bunce Senior Reactor Operator S. Eckberg Assistant Director, Radiation Safety Office L. Gorden HP TechHeian
W. Leid
- Interim Vice Provost for Research, Graduate School
- J. _ Neldiger Reactor Supervisor L. ; Porter Director, Radiation Safety Office S. Sanders HP Technician G. Tripard Director, Nuclear Radiation Center INSPECTION PROCEDURE (IP! USED IP 69001: CLASS h NON-POWER REACTORS IP 86740:
INSPECTION OF TRANSPORTATION ACTIVITIES ITEMS OPENED, CLOSED, AND DISCUSSED Opened IFl 027-97 201-01 Licensee to check on liquid scintillation counter the recommended ca'ibration.
Cicsed
- NCV O27 97 201-02 Failure to list major isotopes on shipping papers and labels as determined by the formula in 49CFR Part 173.433(f)
>
f PARTIAL LIST OF ANACHRONISMS USED CIR Director, Nuclear Radiation Center FSAR Final Safety Analysis Report-HP-Health Physics LCO Limiting Conditions for Operations RO Reactor Operator RSC
' Reactor Safety Ccmmittee RS-Reactor Supervisor SRO Senior Reactor. Operator TS
-- Technical Specifications 6-h i --
w________________--._-.