IR 05000131/1985001
| ML20137C340 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000131 |
| Issue date: | 08/14/1985 |
| From: | NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20137C320 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-131-85-01, 50-131-85-1, NUDOCS 8508220241 | |
| Download: ML20137C340 (6) | |
Text
'
.
DETAILS 1.
' Persons Contacted
- A. J. Blotcky, Reactor Supervisor / Senior Reactor Operator
- G. T. Hansen, Research Chemist / Reactor Operator Trainee D. J. Tuma, Research Biochemist / Reactor Safeguards Committee
- Indicates those present at the exit interview.
2.
General Facility Operating License No. 57 was renewed in August 1983 for a period of 10 yr.
In accordance with current practice, the entire license was restated to incorporate all changes and amendments made since the issuance of the original license in June 1959.
This inspection, which began at 8:30 a.m. on July 9, 1985, was conducted to examine the overall operational program at the Omaha Veterans Administration Medical Center TRIGA Research Reactor.
The facility was toured shortly after arrival, and the conditions of the facility were found to be acceptable.
A startup of the research reactor was observed on the second day of the inspec-tion.
The pre-and post-operational checks, startup, and shutdown (which were performed by the operator trainee under the supervision of the SRO) were done in a professional manner.
3.
Organization The facility organization was reviewed and verified to be consistent with the Technical Specifications. The minimum staffing requirements were verified to be present during reactor operation and fuel handling or refueling operations.
During this period, the licensee added a research chemist to the staff who is acquiring the experience and training necessary to become an R0/SRO.
The li-censee indicated that this individual probably would be ready for license exam-ination within the next several months.
The trainee was in agreement with that statement.
The current Reactor Safeguards Committee members are as follows.
Chairman:
J. J. Matook, M.D.
Members:
A. J. Barak, Ph.D.
D. J. Tuma, Ph.D.
A. J. Blotcky, M.S.
The current Associate Chief of Staff for Research is R. L. Zetterman, M.D.; the Reactor Supervisor reports to this position.
8508220241 850814 l
PDR ADOCK 05000131 G
PDR-1-
_. _ _ _ _ _
_
.
4.
Logs and Records The reactor logs and records were reviewed to verify that a.
required entries were made, b.
significant problems or incidents were documented, c.
the facility was being maintained properly, and d.
records were available for inspection.
Tl.e inspector suggested that licensee consider adding an item covering their routine ventilation system check on the daily check list.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified during this part of the inspection.
5.
Reviews and Audits The licensee's review and audit program records were examined by the inspector to verify the following.
a.
Reviews of facility changes, operating and maintenance procedures, design changes, and unreviewed experiments had been conducted by a safety review committee as required by the Technical Specifications.
b.
The review committee and/or subcommittees were composed of qualified members, and quorum and frequency of meeting requirements had been met.
Annual audits before the current year were conducted by the entire membership of the Reactor Safeguards Committee (RSC) and were documented in the minutes of the RSC.
The current and future audits will be done by a RSC member who is not a part of the reactor staff. The results of these audits are documented by letters to the RSC.
The audits cover the period from June to June.
The RSC met on a quarterly basis during the period of this inspection (September 30, 1982, through July 10, 1985) as required by the Technical Speci-fications.
Each RSC meeting is concluded with a facility tour and inspection of the logs.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified in this portion of the i
inspection.
i 6.
Reaualification Training Because the licensee had only one licensed operator (SRO license) during this period, there have been no requalification activities.
However, the SR0 has
'
been training a research chemist for eventual licensing in addition to per-forming the duties of an SRO in compliance with regulatory requirements.
No items of noncompliance ~or deviations were identified in this section of the inspection.
-2-
.
7.
Procedures
~
The inspector reviewed the licensee's procedures to determine if procedures were issued, reviewed, changed or updated, and approved in accordance with Technical Specifications requirements.
This review also verified that a.
procedure content was adequate to safely operate and maintain the facility, b.
responsibilities were defined clearly, and c.
required check lists and forms were used.
The inspector determined that the required procedures were available and that the contents of the procedures were adequate.
The following procedures were written during this period.
(1)
Personnel Radiation Protection (2) Review and Approval of Changes to Procedures (3) Administrative Control of Operation and Maintenance The inspector reviewed these and found that they had been approved as required, were in the reactor control console procedures manual, and were adequate to ac-complish the intended purpose.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified in this portion of the inspection.
8.
Surveillance Activities The inspector reviewed procedures, surveillance test schedules, and test records and discussed the surveillance program with responsible personnel to verify that a.
when necessary, procedures were available and adequate to perform the tests, b.
tests were completed within the required time schedule, and c.
test records were available.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified during this part of the inspection.
9.
Experiments The inspector examined the licensee's experiment program to verify that pro-posed experiments are reviewed, prepared, conducted, and documented properly.
The administrative controls established by the licensee in regard to experi-ments, experimental procedures, and apparatus appear sufficient to ensure com-pliance with Technical Specifications' experiment limitations.
In general, the experiments performed in the reactor are for radioanalytical chemistry purposes-3-
. _ - _ _.
_
_
_
._
_
-
-
.
and are very similar in nature.
During this inspection period, no new experi-ments were proposed. A modified experimental protocol was reviewed and ap-proved in accord with Technical Specifications' requirements.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified in this portion of the inspection.
10.
Fuel Handling Activities The facility fuel handling program was reviewed by the inspector.
The review included verifying approved procedures for fuel handling and their technical adequacy in the areas of radiation protection, criticality safety, and Tech-nical Specifications.
The inspector determined by records review and discus-sions with personnel.that fuel-handling operations and startup tests were car-ried out in conformance with the licensee's procedures. The only fuel handling is for quarterly fuel inspections (four elements each quarter).
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified in this part of the in-spection, 11. Transporta+ ion (Fuel Shipping)
There have been no fuel shipments since the last operational inspection.
12.
Radiation Control The inspector reviewed records, interviewed personnel, and made observations and independent surveys to verify that radiation controls were being carried out in accordance with the license and NRC regulations. The areas covered were a.
posting and labeling of restricted areas and radioactive materials, b,
control of irradiated samples, c.
calibration of radiation-detection instruments, d.
required periodic radiation and contamination surveys, e.
exposure records of personnel, and f.
personnel training.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified during this portion of the inspection.
13.
Radwaste Management Airborne effluents from the reactor consist primarily of *2Ar.
The carrent Technical Specifications (effective August 1983) require annual reporting of the quantities released.
The *2Ar equivalent releases for the periods July 1 through December 31, 1983, and January 1 through December 31, 1984, were < 0.05 and < 0.1 Ci respectively.
There are no liquid or solid waste releases to the environs beyond the control of the licensee.
If necessary, radioactive wastes can be collected and disposed of under the Omaha Veterans Administration Medical Center (OVAMC) by-product material license.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified during this part of the inspection.
-4-
.
__.
.
.-. _
.-.
.
14.
Emergency Planning The licensee's emergency plan was approved by the NRC on June 12, 1984.
This Emergency Plan was fully implemented by September 26, 1984, when an emergency exercise was conducted.
The inspector reviewed the exercise scenario and the detailed minutes of the exercise and found the scenario to be adequate and the
,
performance of personnel during the exercise to be more than satisfactory. The excercise was critiqued by an OVAMC occupational safety and health specalist who gave it an excellant evaluation.
The inspector determined that commitments made in the plan, such as annual drills, procedures, training, emergency equip-ment, and testing of alarms, had been conducted.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified during this portion of the inspection.
15.
Physical Security The inspector reviewed the implementation of the licensee's physical security program through visual examination, review of records, and discussions with ap-propriate facility personnel. The review indicated that the physical security plan was well implemented, responsibilities and response requirements were de-fined clearly and understood, and appropriate test procedures were being used.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified in this part of the in-spection.
16. Nuclear Materials Safecuards The inspectors reviewed the accountability procedures and practices records and materials status reports for the past 3 yr.
The procedures, practices, and re-cords were found to be well implemented, responsibilities and response require-ments were defined clearly and understood, and appropriate test procedures were being used.
The inspector noted that one of the required material status reports (Form 742 for period April 1 through September 30,1983) had not been submitted on a timely basis. All other reports during the inspection period had been filed within the required time limits.
The late report was discussed with the licen-see, who indicated that this occurred during a time of change in personnel in the director's off'.ce.
The licensee's follow system should prevent a reoccur-rence of this; however, additional actions that might be taken to prevent a re-currence were discussed.
The inspector noted that, although the licensee is required to do an annual in-ventory, he does it quarterly in conjunction with the quarterly fuel inspec-tion.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were found during this portion of the inspection.
-5-
,
.
.
.
17. Exit Interview The inspector, accompanied by Mr. L. A. Yandell, the NRC Senior Resident In-spector at the Fort Calhoun Station, met with the licensee representatives (listed in paragraph 1) at the ' conclusion of the inspection on June 13, 1985, and summarized the scope and findings of the inspection as indicated in the previous paragraphs.
.
-6-t 1