IR 05000073/1993001
| ML20056C856 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vallecitos Nuclear Center |
| Issue date: | 06/18/1993 |
| From: | Norderhaug L, Pate R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20056C854 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-073-93-01, 50-73-93-1, NUDOCS 9307260036 | |
| Download: ML20056C856 (7) | |
Text
.
-
-
.
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION V
Report N /93-01 License N R-33
'
Licensee: General Electric Company Vallecitos Nuclear Center P. O. Box 460 Pleasanton, California 94566 Facility Name: Nuclear Test Reactor Facility Inspection Conducted: June 2 - 7 and June 18, 1993 Inspector:
LeRo'y R. N6rddrhau '
6// 93 Date Signed
'
Sr. Material Con rol Analyst Approved by: / - g _
[/[8/93 Robert f Pate( Chief Date Signed Safeguards, Emergency Preparedness and Non-Power Reactor Branch Inspection Summary:
d Areas Inspected: This routine, announced inspection of a Class II Research and Test Reactor included: reactor operations and transportation of radioactive materials. The inspection also included tours of the licensee's facilit Inspection procedures 30703, 40750 and 86740 were use Results: In the areas inspected, the licensee's programs appeared adequate to-accomplish their objectives. No violations or deviations were identifie "
.O ADOCK 05000073 pyg
_
.
t i
.
DETAILS Key Persons Contacted Licensee:
,
- C. Bassett, Senior Engineer
- J. Cherb, Manager, Regulatory Compliance G. Cunningham, Senior Licensing Engineer
- W. Kreutel, Reactor Operator-(SRO)
- J. Nixon, Safeguards Specialist 4_ *D. Smith, Manager, Nuclear Test Reactor (SR0)
R. Snyder, Reactor Operator (SRO)
i *J. Tenorio, Manager, Remote Handling Operations
.
- Denotes those in attendance at the exit intervie '
'
In addition to the individuals noted above, the inspector met and held discussions with other members of the licensee's staf . Class II Research and Test Reactor Operations (40750) :
The licensee's progrim was reviewed for compliance with the. requirements '!
.
of 10 CFR Parts 19 2.), 50, 55,~ Technical Specifications (TS), and licensee procedures. The inspection included a review of selected procedures and reccrds, interviews with personnel and facility. tour The inspection also included observations made during a reactor startup :
and neutron radiography operation . Reactor Operations The Nuclear Test Reactor (NTR) activities consists primarily of .
neutron radiography of parts and components including explosives, !
and, occasionally, irradiated reactor fuel experiments. The
- reactor is typically operated daily during normal working hours at a reactor power level of about 100 kw. .In 1991 the reactor was operated above critical about 804 hours0.00931 days <br />0.223 hours <br />0.00133 weeks <br />3.05922e-4 months <br /> with 380 startups. Total reactor plan operations equaled 3.216 MW days in 1991. For 1992, the reactor had operated about 736 hours0.00852 days <br />0.204 hours <br />0.00122 weeks <br />2.80048e-4 months <br /> above critical with 346 -
startups mad Plant operations equaled 2.869 MW days in 199 : Management and Organization .
There had been no changes in management or organizational structure.at the NTR facility since the l'ast inspection of this area (50-73/91-04). However, one of the operations specialists had retired. and was not. replaced. At the time of this inspection, staffing at the NTR consisted of a facility m'anager that is 'als licensed Senior Reactor Operator (SRO) and two operations specialists that are licensed SR0s. The organization was observed
'
to be consistent with TS 6.1.1. The current staff have been long ,
term employees at the NTR facilit '
.
i i
<
-+- - . - , -
_ . _ . - -
!-
'
,
.
~
2 .
,
- Operator and Maintenance Records ,
,
A review of operator's logs and startup check sheets indicated l that there had been no occurrences of significant problems. The logs and check sheets were adequately filled out and were ;
consistent with TS requirements and facility operating procedure In 1991, the facility experienced three automatic scrams and one manual shutdown. In 1992, there were three automatic scrams of ;
the reactor. In each case the licensee appropriately identified i the cause and took appropriate measures to prevent recurrence. In i each case there were not significant operating problems that '
contributed to the cause or resulted from the scram l
!
A review of the record of maintenance activities indicated that ;
maintenance was performed consistent with TS and licensee l procedures. Calibrations were performed, as appropriate, after -
unscheduled maintenance activities were completed. Calibrations >
and maintenance were also noted to have been performed by ,
qualified individual , Procedures ,
from a review of selected standard operating procedures, the inspector determined that facility procedures had been established !
and approved in accordance with the requirements delineated in TS , Section 6.3. Based on observations during the inspection, it j appeared that facility procedures were also being adequately ,
implemented, with one exception. Procedure 12.1 " Fine Control Rod :
Drive" and procedure 12.2 " Coarse Control Rod Drive" allowed the ;
required test to determine maximum control rod withdrawal rate to be determined by measuring the manual insertion rate. Discussion i of the validity of assuming that the withdrawal and insertion rate :
would be the same for the reversible motor drive, prompted.the '
licensee to agree to amend their p'rocedures to measure the ,
withdrawal time while withdrawing the control rods. The i licensee's further actions will be reviewed in the course of a '
f uture physical security inspection. (50-073/93-01-01)
-; Requalification Training ,
The inspector reviewed records of SR0 requalification examinations . !
since the last inspection of this area (50-73/91-04). The review j disclosed that biennial written examinations- for SR0s were being .
administered in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR Part 55, Subpart In addition to SR0 training, the NTR staff are trained in-handling l explosives ~and other hazardous materials related to the activities :
performed at the facilit j t
!
.
t u ,
w .,.4 ~ ,-,,,__m- '._% , - , # --.,e
-
%-- , ,-.--e ,
. I
'
..
'
3-l Surveill ances'- ,
Records for selected surveillances prescribed. in TS Section ;
were examined. The examination included surveillances for scram trip tests, alarm trip tests, drop-out current tests, reactivity calculations, rod worth determinations, temperature coefficient '
verifications, thermal power verifications-and various channel calibration The inspector determined that the licensee's surveillance program j met or exceeded the requirements prescribed in the T Experiments ,
Based on a review of records and discussions with facility personnel, the~ inspector determined that adequate reviews were- .
being conducted for all irradiation type experiments to ensure t that they did not represent an unreviewed safety question and reactivity limits would not be exceede Irradiated and radiographed items were. accounted for until they had decayed to an acceptable level for releas l Radiation Protection Personnel exposure records from January 1,1988, through September'
30, 1989, were reviewe Personnel monitoring devices, beta / gamma film and neutron albedo dosimeters, were processed monthly by a NVLAP accredited contract ..
'
vendor. The inspector ver'ified that forms NRC-4 and NRC-5, or .
. equivalent were maintained in accordance with NRC requirements and licensee procedures. Letters documenting exposures pursuant to 10 CFR 19.13 had been prepared within the required time limit and sent to individuals that had been~ contracted to-assist with
-
'
neutrographing operations. The 1992 and-(first quarter).1993 reports indicate that, with one exception, the neutron exposures remain substantially less than fifteen percent of the total dose '
(neutra plus beta-gamma) dose. For the month of January 1992, the total beta-gamma dose to the reactor operators was 410 mrem-while the total neutron dose was 70 mrem (or 14.58 % of the .
total). This higher-than-normal neutron contribution to the total
.
dose was attributed to a greater number of experiments in the north room and the conduct of annual preventative maintenance -
procedures. The inspector noted, however, that no individual had exceeded the limits of ether 10 CFR 20.101(a) or (b). In 1991, the average exposure of the operators was 1.84 rem with an ,
individual high dose of 2.16 rem. In 1992, the average exposure was 1.92 rem; the highest individual dose was 2.4 l The reactor cell air activity was evaluated daily with a continuous air monitor prior to entries for reactor startup, n-f
L.:.
}
t i
.N-
-
'
4 .
,
check Appropriately located fixed air samplers within the facility were changed and counted weekly. Air sample date
-
.
< indicated that air activity in the work areas was within NRC :
limits at the facility, j Daily and weekly routine contamination surveys were being .
performed in accordance with the licensee's procedures,-and indicated that contamination levels were being maintained at a, t minimu ;
During facility tours, the inspector made an independent radiation' ,
survey.- The inspector observed that radiation areas and high radiation areas were posted as required.by 10 CFR Part 2 .
Licensee controls for high radiation areas were also observed' to
<
be consistent with 10 CFR Part 20 requirements. During the' course of the previous. inspection (50-73/91-04) the: inspector had noted, that the aluminum film cassette and carrier rack which had been exposed to.the neutron beam for the radiography was routinely unloaded at a location near the reactor operator at the_ consol Since that inspection, the licensee has significantly reduced the-mass of aluminum in the rack which is exposed to the neutron bea Replacement of the aluminum rack with one constructed of . !
polyethylene did not.significantly further reduce the' operator's (or handler's) exposure. The licensee is, however, continuing to t evaluate alternate materials for construction of the cassette and/or rack components to further reduce the. individual and group !
exposure During the course of the inspection, the-lice'nsee was in the process of relocating certain reactor bay controls to reduce the ,
exposure to the individual who must manipulate'these controls ..
required for surveillance of operating console instrumentatio i i. Audit
'
. .
The inspector reviewed selected quarterly auditsL performed by the' ;
Regulatory Compliance Group during the period .since the last-inspection. The audits were conducted to ensure that the NTR ;
facility was being operated in accordance with the requirements of TS and facility procedures. The audits. appeared to be broad in .
scope and were designed to cover all TS requirements _ during.a two 1 year audit period. Of the audit findings identified, 'none-appeared to: represent a significant safety problem. All audit L; findings appeared to be effectively corrected. The inspector ~ L
'
concluded that the audit program met or exceeded the requirements of the T .
j. Emergency Plann'ina The inspector reviewed records of emergency drills, including ' !
participation.of off site organizations, and held discussions with
,
>
.- q
-
.
~
.
.
cognizant licensee representatives to determine the licensee's compliance with the E Based on the review of records and discussions with licensee personnel, the inspector noted that (1) initial and periodic radiological, fire protection, first aid and hazardous materials
!
training was being adequately provided to emergency response personnel; (2) periodic drills were being conducted and critiqued 4
'
to ensure personnel were familiar with their assigned _
responsibilities; (3) adequate instruction and participation from outside support organizations was evident; and (4) adequate instructions were being provided to unescorted visitors to familiarize them with the sites emergency signals and assembly :
area The inspector also noted that emergency response equipment .
appeared to be properly maintaine . Annual Reports
.
The licensee's annual reports in 1991 and 1992 were reviewe These reports were submitted in accordance with TS 6.5;l and summarized plant operations, changes, tests, experiments, and major maintenance at the NTR. The reports also included a summary of radiation levels and sample results from on-site and off_ site-
-
monitoring stations, and personnel exposures. No errors or anomalies were identifie The licensee's performance appeared to be fully satisfactory and their program seemed capable of meeting its safety objectives. No violations r j
or deviations were identifie i Transportation of Radioactive Materials (86740)
The inspector reviewed the licensee's program for comp?iance with the requirements of 10 CFR Part 20 and 49 CFR Parts 171 through 18 _i The inspector noted that most of the off-site shipments consisted of l radiographed items, after adequate decay time. Shipments of radioactive materials or contaminated waste are handled under the authority of the
-
facility's State of California licens The licensee's program appeared capable of meeting its safety objectives. No . violations or deviations were identifie ,
y Exit Interview .
~
The inspector met with the licensee representatives, denoted _in l paragraph one at the conclusion of the inspection. The scope and- -l findings of the inspection were summarize The inspector informed the licensee that there were no apparent-violations or deviations identified in the areas inspected. .The inspector also, at that time, noted the licensee's progress in reducing-1
-- ----- _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _,
-
, _ - -
, , .
.
,:
If s
,
,
t
. -
-
...;
.
'..- .;
'
.l
'
,
personnel exposure and encouraged the licensee to continue efforts '.to ;
. reduce radiation exposure of the facility staff in accordance with ALARA ,
objective i r
.
S t
?
'l
'h
- l
!
!
.
f i
!
-i f
i
?
I
',
-i I
$
>
i
.
f
.'I i
'I e
.
_- 1
.;
Ys
!
?
>
I
!
d il,
,
a
'l
!
-!
.-
'.
_
e i
._s.-
' :.i a' .. - , ~ , . :. - . . . . + ..