IR 05000070/1979002
| ML19211C293 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vallecitos File:GEH Hitachi icon.png |
| Issue date: | 11/20/1979 |
| From: | Faulkenberry B, Zwetzig G NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19211C288 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-070-79-02, 50-70-79-2, NUDOCS 8001110174 | |
| Download: ML19211C293 (4) | |
Text
U. S. NUCLEAR REGUMTORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT P.ECION V 50-70/79-02 Report No.
50-70 TR-1 Locket No.
ticen,, go, Safeguards creup Licensee:
General Electric Company Vallecitos fluclear Center P. 0. Box 460, Pleasanton, California 94566 Facility Name.
General Electric Test Reactor (GETR)
GETR Inspection at:
October 23-24, 1979 Inspection conducted:
Inspectors: b 4ttf
[,
31(r/4n[f1 / 9 /I 7 f
/
G.)B. Zdetzip,Meactor Inspector Date Signed Date Signed Date Signed Approved By: /b]
}/ v,,.ys.N / ')yy
-
B. H. Faulkenberry,[ Chiel _ Reactor Projects Section 2 Date Signed Reactor Operations Nuclear' Support Branch Summary:
Inspection on October 23-24, 1979 (Report No. 50-70/79-02)
Areas Inspected: Routine, unannounced inspection during long-term shutdown of facility activities and staffing, operator requalification, surveillance, review and audit, and independent inspection effort.
The inspection in-volved 13 inspector-hours by one inspector.
Results:
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified by the inspector.
1740 273 RV Form 719(7)
8 001110 Ill
.
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted
- 0. Gilliland, Manager, Reactor Irradiations
- P. Kachel, Manager, GETR Operations W. King, Manager, Nuclear Safety
- W. Springsteen, Supervisor, GETR Planning and Materials
- E. Strain, Nuclear Safety Engineer The inspector talked with other licensee personnel including reactor operators.
- Denotes those attending the exit interview.
2.
Facility Activities and Staffing The inspector toured the facility and reviewed the following facility records on a sampling basis to determine if facility activities and staffing were in conformance with regulatory requirements:
a.
Process Panel Logs (March 30 to October 23,1979)
b.
Nuclear Console Logs (March 30 to September 26, 1979)
c.
Shift Supervisor's Logs (March 30 to September 30,1979)
d.
Material Transfer Records (November 10, 1978 to October 16,1979)
e.
Daily and Weekly Duty Check Lists (April 2 to October 21,1979)
f.
Routine Area Patrol Logs (March 28 to October 23,1979)
Equipment Malfunction Reports (March 31 to October 19,1979)
h.
Stack Monitor Chart, R-24 (ending October 14,1979)
Based on observations made during the tour of the facility, review of the above records and discussions with licensee representatives, fac_ility activities and staffing were in accordance with regulatory requirements.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
1740 274
-2-
-
3.
Operator Requalification Based on discussions with the Operations Supervisor, the inspector verified that the licensee was aware of the need for operator re-qualification prior to startup following a long-term shutdown.
The Operations Supervisor indicated that the requalification activities which would normally be performed during this calendar quarter were being delayed until af ter the meeting of an ACRS Subcommittee on GETR scheduled for tiovember 14, 1979. This delay was prompted by the consideration that the meeting might result in a ' licensee management decision regarding future operation of the facility and thus affect the need for operator requalification.
fio items of non:ompliance or deviations were identified.
3.
Surveillance By letter dated January 16, 1978, the licensee requested amendment of the GETR Technical Specifications to permit deferment of certain surveillance operetions while the reactor was in a cold shutdown condition for a period in excess of thirty days. At the time of this inspection the licensee had not yet submitted all of the in-formation needed for the flRC to make a final determination with respect to this request. Accordingly, the licensee is still required to perform all of the surveillances identified in the facility Technical Specifications which are capable of being performed in the cold shutdown, defueled mode.
To verify. performance of the required surveillances, the inspector examined Operations Request Forms covering the period between February 12, and September 4, 1979. On the basis of this exam-ination it appeared that all surveillances applicable to the current reactor cendition were being performed in accordance with Technical Specification requirements.
tio items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
4.
Review and Audit The ins,'ector reviewed Section 9.2 of the GETR Technical Specifi-cations oi.aling with Review and Audit and compared its provisions with the implementing procedures given in Standard Opercing Procedure (SOP), Chapter X, Section ti, " Facility Modifications." The inspector advised the licensee that S0P Section 8.6.1, which states that the Manager, fluclear Safety "provides the independent review required by Technical Specification 9.2.2," did not appear to be consistent with Technical Specification 9.2.4 which states that the review shall be performed by a chartered review group.
The licensee responded that the Manager, fluclear Safety has personnel in his organizational unit to assist in the review.
The inspector stated that this was not a chartered group and that the procedure should:
be revised to show unambiguous conformance to the Technical Specifi-cations.
This matter is considered unresolved.
-3-
,.
.
5.
Independent Inspection Effort The independent inspection effort involved review of the facility procedure for independent review of safety matters (see Paragraph 4).
6.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items are matters about which more information is required in order to ascertain whether they are acceptable items, items of noncompliance, or deviations.
An unresolved item disclosed during the inspection is discussed in Paragraph 4.
(79-02-1)
7.
Exit Interview The inspector met with the licensee representatives identified in Paragraph 1 at the conclusion of the inspection on October 24, 1979. The inspector summarized the purpose and scope of the inspec-tion and the findings. No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified within the scope of the inspection. With regard to
- .he unresolved issue, Mr. Gilliland stated that they would look into the matter.
.
1740 276