IR 05000111/1982002

IE Insp Repts 50-111/82-02 & 50-297/82-01 on 820315-19. Noncompliance Noted:Control Room Left Unattended & Reactor Safeguards Advisory Group Not Convened Semiannually

ML20054H106
Person / Time
Site:	North Carolina State University
Issue date:	04/21/1982
From:	Burger C, Julian C NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
To:
Shared Package
ML20054H074	List: IR 05000111/1982002 ML20054H073 ML20054H084 ML20054H088 ML20054H098
References
50-111-82-02, 50-111-82-2, 50-297-82-01, 50-297-82-1, NUDOCS 8206220578
Download: ML20054H106 (7)

Text

.

. . ,

[ '

~q,,

UNITED STATES 8 o NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION E REGION 11

$

0 8 101 MARIETTA ST., N.W., SUITE 3100

- & ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303

Report Nos. 50-111/82-02 and 50-297/82-01 Licensee: North Carolina State University Raleigh, NC 27607 Facility Name: R-3 and PULSTAR Research Reactor Docket Nos. 50-111 and 50-297 License Nos. R-63 and R-120 Inspection at North Carolina State University Campus, Raleigh, NC Inspector: h-C. Juliart 7 hM/

'Date Signed db Approved bh __ r- - ] 8, ~)

6A C. Curger, Section Chief ' ate 'igned Reactor Projects Section 1C Division of Project and Resident Programs SUMMARY Inspection on March 15 - 19, 1982 Areas Inspected This routine, unannounced inspection involved 40 inspector-hours on site in the areas of Facility Organization and Staffing, Facility Tour, Logs, Reports and Records, Reactor Safety Committee Activites, Experiments, Procedures, Surveil-lance, Requalification Training, Radiation Control, Followup on previous unresolved items, enforcement matters and reportable occurrence Results:

Of the nine areas inspected, no violations or deviations were identified in seven areas; two violations were found in two areas (Failure to secure reactor during unattended period-see paragraph 14; and Failure of the Reactor Safeguards Advisory Group to meet on 6 month frequency-see paragraph 8).

8206220578 820703 PDR ADOCK 05000111 Q PDR

____ _ .. .. . _ - )

-

.

. ..

DETAILS Persons Contacted Licensee Employees P. J. Turinsky, Head of Department of Nuclear Engineering

• G. Cockrell, Director, Nuclear Reactor Program

• T. C. Bray, Reactor Operations Manager S. J. Bilyj, Chief of Reactor Maintenance W. G. Douglas, Chief Reactor Operator R. D. Cross, Reactor Health Physicist

• T. L. Brackin, Reactor Safety Specialist L. T. Caruthers, Radiation Protection Officer

• D. W. Morgan, Associate Radiation Protection Officer

• L. W. Seagandollar, Chairman, Radiation Safeguard Advisory Group (RSAG)

• K. Verghese, RSAG member Other licensee employees contacted included technicians, operators and office personne * Attended exit interview Exit Interview The inspection scope and findings were summarized on March 19, 1982, with those persons indicated in paragraph 1 abov The violations identified during this inspection and possible corrective actions were discusse Licensee representatives acknowledged their understanding of the finding . Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings Item 297/79-02-01 - Infraction: Failure to establish procedures for implementing requirements of 10 CFR 21. The inspector verified that 10 CFR 21 procedures have been developed, the required postings have been made and the required documents are available. The inspector discussed these procedures with the Nuclear Operations Administrator to clarify ambiquities of the requirement. This item is close Item 297/79-02-02 - Deficiency: Failure to properly review and approve a temporary procedure change. The inspector observed that temporary procedure changes are currently being properly reviewed, approved, and subsequently reviewed by the Radiation Protection Council. This item is close . Unresolved Items Unresolved items were not identified during this inspectio ._

.

. ..

5. Facility Organization and Staffing The inspector verified that the current facility staffing meets the require-ments of the Technical Specifications and that.the organization is function-ing as described in the Technical Specifications. No violations were identified in this are . Facility Tour The inspector toured the PULSTAR facility with the Reactor Operations Manager. No conditions adverse to safety were observe The R-3 reactor was toured with the Reactor Health Physicist who is directing the activities for decommissioning this facilit No conditions adverse to safety were observe . Logs, Reports and Records The inspector reviewed a sampling of the PULSTAR Console log, maintenance records design change records, and other periodic logs and record Facility annual reports from 1979 to date were reviewed and discussed with the facility staff. The inspector reviewed records of a completed design change to prevent the possibility of leakage between contaminated and noncontaminated systems in response to IE Circular 77-1 No viciation:;

were identified in this are . Committee Activities The inspector reviewed the meeting minutes of the Radiation Protection Council (RPC) from 1979 to date to verify that the RPC functions required by Technical Specification are being performed. No violations or deviations were identifie The meeting minutes of the Reactor Safeguards Advisory Group (RSAG), a committee to the RPG, were reviewed from 1979 to date. Technical Specifi-cation 6.2.3 states that the RSAG will be solely responsible for independent appraisals of reactor procedures and the RPC nas delegated additional review and advisory functions to the RSAG. Technical Specification 6.2.7 requires that the RSAG shall meet at least every six calendar months. RSAG minutes, however, show there were no meeting held in the intervals of August 7, 1978 to April 15, 1980 and November 19, 1980 to the date of this inspectio Failure to satisfy the six month meeting frequency required by Technical Specifications is a violation. (50-297/82-01-01)

The inspector noted that the RPC has taken action to provide a more timely review of temporary changes to procedure. Previous open item 297/79-02-03

,

is close _- -

---

_ - -

. .

l

l 3 l l

9_ Experiments During tours, the status of the various permanently installed experiment facilities was observe The records of safety analyses, review, and approval of the following major experimental efforts, initiated since 1979 were examine P-6 PULSTAR Startup Experiments with 5x5-R-3 Core P-14 Preliminary Testing Associated with Installation of a Neutron Radiography Unit P-15 Reactor Noise Analysis Experiments P-16 Prompt Gamma Facility Experiment P-6 has been completed with the exception of pulse testing of the new reflected cor Pulse testing has been deferred and will require further committee review of procedures as described belo Experiment P-14, the neutron radiograph facility, is presently disassembled for redesign. The RPC has made several reviews of this experiment and the licensee has '.ommitted to keep the RPC informed of future development Open Item 79-02-07 from a previous report concerning RPC review of experiment P-14 is close Experiments appears to be receiving an adequate analysis and review prior to implementation. No violations or deviations were identified in this are . Procedures Selected operation and maintenance procedures were reviewed to assure compliance with the Technical Specifications. It appears that procedures are controlled and safety-related activities are conducted in accordance with adequate procedures as required by Technical Specification.

, Previous open item 79-02-04 concerned the lack of documentation of review of ( temporary procedure changes prior to their approval by the Nuclear The licensee has established mechanisms to

'

Operations Administrato document review prior to approval . This item is close Previous open item 79-02-05 concerned the fact that procedure SP Pulsing Procedure contained no acceptance criteria for the reactivity balance and required no steps to disable pulse operation at the comple-

! tion of the tes SP 4.2 has been revised into three procedures; SP Pre-Pulse Checks, SP 4.3 Routine Pulsing, and SP 4.4 Pulsing E Measurement by Gold Foil Irradiation. Minutes show that these procedures have been reviewed by the l

{

t

_

.

.

reviewed by the RPC but have yet to be approved for us The Nuclear

Operations Administrator (NOA) stated that no pulsing operations have been conducted since the last inspection, none are planned in the near future and that these procedures will be given final approval by the NOA prior to pulse operatio Item 79-02-05 remains open pending review during a future inspectio Procedure SP 2.1 describes the method of revising the Operations Manual via an Advance Change. This procedure change is reviewed by the operations staf f, approved by the N0A and implemented with subsequent review by the RP This is allowed by Technical Specification 6.3.b which describes temporary change The inspector stated at the exit interview his observation that the majority of procedure changes are being accomplished as

'

Advance Change and are implemented prior to RPC approval. This does not appear to meet the intent of the Technical Specification that procedure changes shall be made only with the approval of the RP Licensee representatives stated that the RPC will review this practice to determine if the intent of the Technical Specifications are being me This is an open item to be reviewed during a future inspection (50-297/82-01-02).

No violations or deviations were identified in this are . Surveillance 'a The inspector reviewed selected surveillance procedures and completed records of these tests to insure that the requirements of the Technical Specifications are being met. No violations or deviations were observed in this are . Reactor Operator Requalification The inspector reviewed records of the NRC approved biennial requalification program to verify implementatio No violations were identified in this are . Radiation Control The inspector observed radiation control practices and radioactive effluent measurement practices throughout the facility and discussed these matters with the facility staff. Technical Specification 4.6 requires that the radioactivity in the pool water shall be analyzed monthly and states that the objective is to verify the integrity of the fuel cladding. The licensee is currently taking a monthly sample, doing a gross beta gamma analysis, and an activation analysis to determine the sodium and chlorine concentratio The inspector questioned whether a monthly radionuclide analysis should be

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

-

.

,- **

i . .

h a., ~s '

,

\ '

%' s - i O -

q& .

"i

...s S

,

. 5 l ,

N-performed to determine the major radioisotopes present and their concentra-

"

'f tio The inspector state that the present practice meets the Technical Specification requirement, but a more detailed analysis could provide early warning of fuel clad deterioration, ' experiment failure, or other anomalies.

3 Licensee representatives stated at the exit. interview that they will review

!

the matter. This is an open item to be rsviewed during a future inspectio (50-297/82-01-03)

T j The inspector noted that the majority of the liquid effluents, batch

released through the waste tank system, are not analyzed in detail for isotope and concentration present. This is in accordance with Technical Specification 6.7.5.f.2 which requires only gross beta gamma counting for 4 waste concentrations not exceeding 4E-5 uCi/ml. Most waste tanks are below

-

this threshold and those above are are being analyzed.

] Technical Specification 4.4 requires that the stack monitoring system be i calibrated every 12 months. The inspector reviewed with staff personnel the

! method of calibration and recent results. The licensee presently annually calibrates the stack monitor by observing the response of the monitor to two test sources with appropriate decay corrections. .The inspector stated that this meets the Technical Specification requirement, however, it is a good practice to periodically perform a direct calibration by observing the

monitor response to a known concentration of radioactive ga Licensee j representatives stated at the exit interview they will review this matte This is an open item to be reviewed during a future inspectio (50-297/82-01-04)

i I *

No violations or deviations were observed in this area.

j 1 Reportable Occurrences The inspector discussed with91censee representatives the circumstances of

the reportable occurrences 'since the last inspection and verified that l adequate corrective a'ction has been implemented.

J On May 27, 1981 during preoperational checkout, an' operator inadvertently

'

removed the compensating voltage from the safety channel ion chamber by adjusting the wrong power supply on the PULSTAR console. The reactor was i subsequently operated at 10" power for two hours before the error was

'

discovered. As corrective action, a plastic shield has ~been placed over the power supply adjustment. The item is closed.

During the night of March 11-12, 1982 the PULSTAR console key was not turned

,

off and removed from the keyswitch, due to operator error. The console was l unattended for approximately six hours with key in the switch and on.

l During this, period the reactor was shutdown with all rods fully inserted and

[ subcritical by the same pargin as would be expected under routine condi-I tions. The reactor control room was locked, vacated and protected by the normal security measures so the safety significance of this event is minima __-_-. - - -...-, - _ - - _ - _ . - - ,

-_-__

-

.

. . .,

Technical Specification 1.3.b requires that power to the control rod magnets and actuating circuits be switched off and the key removed to achieve the condition of reactor secured. Technical Specification 1.4 defines reactor operation as any condition when the reactor is not secure Thus, by definition, the reactor was in an operating condition during this unattended perio CFR 50.54.k requires that an operator or senior operator licensed pursuant to Part 55 shall be present at the controls at all times during the operation of the facility. Leaving the controls unattended with the reactor not secured is a violation. (50-297/82-01-05) The licensee has taken immediate corrective action by ~ counseling the operator responsible, reviewing this matter with all licensed personnel and issuing a standing order entitled Guidance for Performing Reactor Checklists . These corrective actions will be reviewed during a future inspectio .__