IR 05000047/1975001
Text
- - - _.
.
. - -
. _...
_. _, _. _. - _ -
....
.
'
.
"
-
.
,
.
.
...
IE:I Form 12
,
(Jcn 75) (Rev)
.
-
,
4D U. S. NUCLEAR REGUI.ATORY CCMMISSION g
m t;
-
.
OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCDfEYr
- @
.
-
.
,
REGION I
.
50-47 IE Inspection Report No:
50-47/75-01'
Docket No:
R-65 Army Materials and Mechanics Research Center License No:
Licensee:
'Jacertown Arsenal Priority:
G Watertown, Massachusetts Category:
Safeguards Watertown, Massachusetts 021/2 Location:
Type of Licensee:
Research Reactor (Possess oniv)
.
Typa of Inspection:
Routine, Unannounced November 25, 1975 Dztes of Inspection:
.
Dates of Previous Inspection:
July 10-12, 1974
'
-
-
[L /
d
'
Reporting Inspector:
N [ ufu' ~
~
n_
L.' N trholm, Reactor faspector UATE None Accocpanying Inspectors:
.
DATE DATE DATE
.
.
None Other Accompanying Personnel:
DATE
?)
2/*
I
/8 /3 Reviewed By:
//,
/7/ /,'m
/ DATE D. L.Caph*ok,'Sec' tion Leader, Section Reactor Operations and Nuclear Support 3 ranch G204210664 811005 PDR FOIA KADAT-Z81-311 PDR
_
_
' " '
w
--, -
,, _ _ _ _
_
.
(
!
.
.
.--
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Enforcement Action A.
Items of Noncompliance 1.
Infraction - relating to failure of Reactor Safeguards Commit-tee to conduct audits as required by Technical Specifications.
2.
Deficiency - relating to failure to conduct visual surveil-lance inspections required by Technical Specifications.
3.
Deficiency - relating to failure to post current copy of
license and amendments thereto as required by 10 CFR 19.11.
B.
Deviations None Licensee Action on Previously Identified Items of Noncompliance A.
The inspectcr verified the operation and surveillance testing of the cathodic protection system.
(Details, 4)
The scope and frequency of periodic radiation surveys were examined B.
during the inspection.
(Details, 6.a)
C.
Inspection of co=pliance with Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 19, posting requirements indicated that a continuing deficiency exists in this area.
(Details, 6.b)
Design Changes None Unusual Occurrences None
.
.
.
)
-
\\y-2-Other Significant Findings A.
Current Findings 1.
Acceptable Areas (These are inspection items which, on a sampling basis, did not results in an Item of Noncompliance, Deviation or Unre-solved Item.)
a.
Administration.
(Details, 2.a)
_
b.
Operations.
(Details, 3)
c.
Containment.
(Details, 4)
d.
Surveillance - General.
(Details, 5)
e.
Radiation Protection - Surveys.
(Details, 6.a)
2.
Unresolved Items None
.
B.
Status of Previous Unresolved Items 1.
The inspector verified surveillance record data with reactor access log entries * and had no further questions on this area.
(Details, 5.c)
2.
The inspector found that facility surveillance records held by the Reactor Facility Supervisor were substantially complete and l
centralized *.
(Details, 5)
,
i l
3.
The inspection revealed that semiannual audits by the Reactor Safeguards Committee were not being conducted. Thio resulted in an Item of Noncompliance as listed under Enforcement Action.
Management Interview An eilt interview was conducted at the Army Materials and Mechanics
~
Research Center with the following persons in attendance:
- Region I Inspection Report 50-47/74-01, dated 7/25/74.
l
.
-
I I
.,. - -
-
-
.-_
._.
_.
_..
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
.
__
.
(
(i
'
,
-3-Mr. J. J. O'Connor, Reactor Facility Superintendent Mr. S. Levin, Chief, Radiation and Occupational Safety Branch Items Discussed A.
Purpose of Inspection The inspector outlined the purpose of the routine unannounced in-spection as a facility familiarization, followup on unresolved items, review of facility organization, surveillance tests and records, fire protection and physical security.
B.
Cathodic Protection Surveillance on the cathodic protection system was discussed.
(De-tails, 4)
C.
Reactor Safeguards Committee The functions of the RSC were discussed.
(Details, 2.b and c)
D.
Items of Noncocoliance Three apparent Items of Noncompliance as listed under Enforcement History were discussed.
~
'
.
e
.
i,,f (,i DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Dr. H. F. Priest, Chairman, Reactor Safeguards Committee Mr. J. J. O'Connor, Chief, Technology Planning and Exploitation Division and Reactor Facility Supervisor Mr. P. O. McManus, Chief, Intelligence and Security Branch Lt. A. R. D'Arpino, Intelligence and Security Branch Mr. J. Druwing, Electrical Engineer Mr. S. Levin, Chief, Radiation and Occupational Safety Branch 2.
Administration and Organization a.
Dr. Priest and Mr. O'Connor serve as Reactor Safeguards Committee Chairman and Reactor Facility Supervisor, respect-ively, as additional duties to their primary non-reactor related positions in the AMMRC organization.
The only organizational change since the last inspection * is the appointment of LTC E. E. Chick as Commander / Deputy Director to replace LTC Henry.
b.
The inspector reviewed the activities of the Reactor Safeguards Committee which is composed of the following members:
H. F. Priest, Chairman i
'
J. J. O'Connor J. Antal i
D. Chipman l
K. Tauer I
S. Levin A meeting, which Lacluded all members, was held 5/21/74 to discuss proposed changes to the Deactivation Report. The next reported mee, ting was held 11/5/75 to update f acility status and discuss an unsolicited dismantling of fer.
The 18 month interval between =eetings is contrary to the six month inter-val specified in AMMRC Memo No. 15-1 dated July 1, 1970.
A licensee representative gave the reason for the lack of
.
meetings as the inactivity of the facility.
l l
- Region 1 Inspection Report 74-01, dated 7/25/74.
I i
.
-...
.
.... - -
__.
.._
.
'
i
.
_
-5-
.c.
Technical Specification 2.b.(3) requires the RSC to semi-annually audit activities performed in the plant area to verify that effective safety and radiological control prac-tices are maintained. No evidence of such audits was pre-sented.
A licensee representative stated that no such audits were being conducted.
This failure to conduct audits required by Technical Spec-ifications resulted in an Item of Noncompliance as listed under Enforcement Action in this report.
3.
Operations
!
The facility has continued in a shutdown " standby" status.
At the time of this inspection, the core tank was drained, all fuel has been removed from the site and only such surveillance as is re-quired by Technical Specifications is being performed.
Despite the receipt of an unsolicited proposal for dismantling, there are currently no plans for any change in the facility's present status.
4.
Containment
.
.
The cathodic protection system was returned to service by the
~
a.
installation of a new rectifier in July 1974.
Since that time, a 20 amp current at 1.9 volts has been maintained to retain containment integrity.
Concurrent with the installa-tion of the replacement rectifier, the installed meters were not replaced in the system.
Accordingly, system checks and operebility are verified quarterly as required by Technical Specifications using portable meters, b.
The inspector verified records of operability and effective-ness conducted on the following dates:
i I
i 7/29/74 s/ 5/74 9/ 9/74 l
10/15/74 6/ 9/75
-
7/22/75 10/23/75
.
-
-
.
,
(
{,
'
,
-6-Attempts to check the system on 1/15/75 and 3/10/75 were un-successful due to'frocen ground around the containment shell.
A licensee representative stated that checks during the vincer months were not recessary, in any case, since the system is non-functional with f rocen ground.
The inspector expressed his concern over the delay between an unsuccessful check on 3/10/75 and the subsequent check 6/9/75, on the basis that performance should be verified as soon as feasible following the thaw.
.
The licensee acknowledged the inspector's_ concern.
5.
Surveillance i
Technical Specific'ation 4.a.(2) requires a monthly ' heck of c
a.
all heating and ventilacing equipment in accordance with a written checklist. A review by the inspector showed the following items to be checked; ambient temperature, air con-
,
ditioning system, heating system, air compressor, and elec-trical facilities. During the period 9/19/74 to 11/19/75, an interval of 14 conths, these checks were conducted 17 times and at least once during each month, b.
A sampling check of fire extinguishers in the f acility indi-cated that the monthly checks required by Technical Specifica-tion 4.c were being conducted as well as a checklist Fire Prevention Inspection Report submitted to the Reactor Facility Supervisor on a monthly basis.
To verify the above information, the inspector cross-checked c.
j the logged Record of Access to the Reactor Facility for the l
period 3/28/75 to 11/25/75 and found the documents to be in l
agreement. The Record of Access is maintained by the Intell-igence and Security Branch and records all authorized access to the containment shell.
i d.
The above check of facility access indicated that no entry to the facility had been made during the period 11/4/75 to 11/19/75, a period of 15 days. Technical Specification 4.a.(1) requires a weekly visual inspection of the heating and ventilating sys-
-
tem in the reactor building. This failure to conduct a visual inspection resulted in an Item of Noncompliance as listed under Enforcement Action.
,
i t
.
I
-.
..
--
'
.
>
.
<'
,
{
..
.)
-7-
--
6.
Radiation Protection
.
.
a.
The inspector reviewed periodic radiation surveys conducted at the reactor, the last of which was performed 10/21/75. Surface contamination levels were less than 2puc/100cm2 e and less
~
than 32uuc/100cm2 8 outside the core tank.
The highest recorded airborne activity was -1.43x10-12 uc/ml in the base-ment area. Area radiation levels are typically 0.1 mrem /hr with high readings of 1.0 mr/hr external to the core can'.
t The reading inside the tank, in the vicinity of the core plate was approximately 3.2 R/hr.
Monthly surveys were conducted until 6/18/75. Technical Specifications issued in May 1975 relaxed the requirement to quarterly.
Subsequent surveys were then conducted on 7/21/75 and 10/21/75.
The inspector had no further questions in this area.
b.
During a tour of the facility, the inspector attempted to verify'that the licensee was in compliance with the require-ments of 10 CFR 19.11 to post a current copy of the license and amendments.
Although Licensa R-65 was posted at the main air lock door, it was not the current copy in that it did not include changes and amendments issued during 1975.
This f ailure to comply with 10 CFR 19 resulted in an Item of Noncompliance as indicated under Enforcement History.
c.
One recent liquid release was =ade from the facility on 7/5/74 when ground water seepage was pumped to the sanitary sewer.
6400 gallons were discharged, without dilution, at a gross activity level of 1.58x10-7 ue/ml for a total discharge of 3.83uci.
The inspector had no further questions in this area.
,
.
.
e e