IR 05000089/1989001

Insp Rept 50-089/89-01 on 890314-16.No Violations,Deviations or Safety Concerns Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Training for Computer Control Console,Associated Training Records,Console Operation by Operators & Exit Interview

ML20247G164
Person / Time
Site:	General Atomics
Issue date:	03/24/1989
From:	Kirsch D, Morrill P NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V)
To:
Shared Package
ML20247G157	List: IR 05000089/1989001 ML20247G153
References
50-089-OL-89-01, 50-89-OL-89-1, NUDOCS 8904040148
Download: ML20247G164 (4)

Text

-. ._--

.

. .

.

.

U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

REGION V

Report Nos. 50-89/0L-89-01 00cket Nos. 50-89 License Nos. R-38 License: General Atomics P. O. Box 85608 San Diego, California 92138-5608 Facility Name: TRIGA Facility, Mark 1 Inspection at: General Atomics Torrey Pines Site Inspection Conducted: March 14-16, 1989 Inspectors: L -

.

/ 3./2 Y [d P. J. Morrill, Operator Examiner Da'te Signed Approved by: hf M2 I/P'I EF. F. Ki rsc h,16hief~ ~ Date Signed Reactor Safety Branch Summa ry:

Areas Inspected:

Routine announced inspection of the Mark I TRIGA operations, including training for the computer control console, associated training records, console operation by several operators, and an exit intervie Results:

In the areas examined, no violations, deviations, or safety concerns were identified. Some minor unfamiliarity with the computer keyboard portion of the computer control console was identified for one operato PDR ADOCK 05000089 .

Dc

'

o

_ _____

- _ _ _ ._ ._

_

,

<

.

, !

,

,

,

.

'

DETAILS Persons Contacted K. E. Asmussen, Manager, Licensing Safety and Nuclear Compliance W. E. Hood, Senior Operator

• J. Razvi, Manager, TRIGA Facility

• L. Whittemore, Manager, Irradiation Facilities (*) Indicates those individuals attending the ' exit interview on March 16, 198 In addition to the individuals identified above, the inspector held discussions with other operators and senior reactor operator . Background In 1986 the Region V Operations Section learned that G.A. Technologies Incorporated was planning to replace the control panel on the Mark I TRIGA reactor with a new computer controlled console with additional capabilities and significant changes in layout and switch functio The facility personnel stated that additional operator training and familiarization would be completed prior to each operator's being allowed to control-the Mark I with the new consol The Region V Operations Section considered this a significant change to the facility and to the skills required by the operators and senior operators. Consequently, an additional examination was scheduled to examine the adequacy of the training program for operators on the new panel and to ensure the operators had been trafned to safely operate the computer based control consol The new console was completed in late 1988 and fully installed in the Mark I TRIGA in early 1989. The inspection was therefore scheduled for

,

March 198 . Scope and Methodology 1 The examination was conducted to review the following items to the extent described below:

(a) System Description of the Reactor Instrumentation and Control System. Complete revie .

(b) Examinations and keys used to check trainin~g effectiveness.

- Complete revie (c) Grading of written examinations administered to operators. A six test sample was used unless problems were uncovered in which case all graded tests would be examine (d) Documentation of reasons for waving the written test. Completed for all persons not taking the tes _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -

_ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ . _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ .

.

l

.

'

.

'

(e) Review or startup and operating procedures with two operators and two senior reactor operators and observation of console operations of two operators and two senior reactor operators including:  !

Daily checks, reactor start-up, steady state operation, pulsing operation, log keeping, console computer operations and oral questioning related to reactor control and safet The purpose of these record reviews, observation of operators, and assuiid eu quest 1oning ,,4: te etermine if the operators sampled had an adequate knowledge of the new consc% to safely operate the Mark I TRIG I Findings The system description of the Reactor Instrumentation and Control System (Chapter II of the facility Training Manual) was revived for completeness and accuracy. Two minor typographical errors were found which the licensee has corrected on subsequent revision The examiner found that the tests prepared and administered by the facility were comprehensive and adequate to test the operator's knowledge of the new console. Some questions were less objective than the standards required by the NRC of it's own examinations, however, the review of the operator's answers showec that the operators had little or no difficulty answering these question The facility Physicist-in-Charge stated that they wanted to retain some subjectivity to allow more insight into the operators thinking processe The sample of six graded tests examined demonstrated that the facility had graded the tests fairly and in accordance with the answer ke Out of six licensed operators and twelve senior operators, four personnel holding SR0 licenses were excused from the written examination. These four persons were all found to be extensively involved in the design, start-up development, and/or testing of the new console. Two other individuals had not taken the test due to their lack of availability. One additional person had failed the initial test and one retest (score less than 70% in both cases).

The Physicist-in-Charge stated that the individuals who had not taken the test and the individual who failed the test would only be allowed to complete startup/ shutdown checklists and low power (< 1Kw) runs for the purpose of making daily core exceu measurements. The average score of persons taking and past ang the test was 85%. The inspector observed that the licensee had prepared and retained appropriate documentation for eacn individual operator and for the personnel excused from taking the tes l l

! __-________--_-9

-

-

,7

.

w.- .-

ll ,

. The inspector questioned and observed two SR0s and two R0s on panel operations. Each evaluation was done one at a time with out cueing the next operator as to the questions asked or control manipulations planned. The inspector had the two SR0s each-complete a daily start up check off list and use the computer-console to display and print out the operational information for steady - state and pulse operation. The inspector had the R0s complete initial panel checks, switch between operational displays-and print out the most important displays.- For both SR0s and R0s, the inspector required the operator to start-up the reactor, pul.se!

the reactor, achieve a steady state power level in manual and ,

automatic and then SCRAM'the reactor. , Questions were also asked regarding the SCRAM circuits, the rod control systems, the. nuclear ,

instruments, and the effects of computer failure on console

~

instrumentatio >

.

t The inspector found that one operator had an apparent l lack of'

confidence with the computer keyboard,'but could operate the-  :

reactor controls satisfactorily. The other operators.also '

/

exhibited good control of.the reactor and;were 'able;to go bey'ond , ,y'

their normal training material in explaining thegnew' console ande it's operatio ,

,

.

When these results were presented to the Physicist-in-Charge and' ,

the Training Coordinator they stated that'they would review keyboard operations with reactor operators to verify familiarity

'

with the following point (1) Knowledge of the specific nui. ear instruinent a'ssociated with indication on the consol (ii) The knowledge that the computer system controls interlocks (NOT SCRAMS).

-7 (iii) The display of the rod drive prohibits at ~ 10 % power and at 1 K (iv) How to return the left screen to normal display mode after displaying a puls The inspector stated that this appeared to be a satisfactory way to ensure all operators had their training refreshed and to eliminate any possible misunderstanding of panel operatio . Exit Interview The inspector met with the licensee's representatives denoted in report section 1 at the conclusion of the inspection on March 16, 1989. The inspector summarized the scope and findings of the inspection. The licensee's representatives expressed an understanding of the inspector's concerns in paragraph 4.e and stated that appropriate remedial training would be completed. The licensee was informed that no violations, deviations or safety concerns had been identifie I

<

l

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - - -- J