IR 05000134/1978001
| ML19281A452 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000134 |
| Issue date: | 01/23/1979 |
| From: | Architzel R, Mccabe E, Raymond W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19281A447 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-134-78-01, 50-134-78-1, NUDOCS 7903130329 | |
| Download: ML19281A452 (12) | |
Text
.
.
'
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT Region I Report No. En-l u/7R-n1 Docket No. 50-134 License No. R-61 Priority Category G
--
Licensee: Worcester Polytechnic Institute Worcester, Massachusetts 01609
.
Facility Name: Nuclear Reactor Facility Inspection at: Worcester, Massachusetts Inspection conducted: December 18-1, 197 Inspectors:
/
2.
dM ff R. Arc 61tzel, a tar In pector ate signed
b b
A
.
I
W.Raymond,ReactpfMnspector
' date signed date signed Approved by:
h/[
(b
_ _ _ /
T
E. C. McCabe, Jr., Chief,# Reactor Projects pates 4gned
'
Section No. 2, R0 & NS Branch Insoection Summary:
Inspection on December 18-19,1978 (Report No. 50-134/78-01)
Areas Inspected:
Routine, unannounced inspection of operations, including: surveillance testing; followup on IEC 77-14; experiments; requalification training; review and audits; procedures; radiation control; and, organization, logs and records. A facility tour was conducted. The inspection involved 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> onsite by two NRC inspectors.
Results:
Of the nine areas inspected no items of uoncompliance were identified in 7 areas, one item was identified in each of the others (Infraction - Failure to approve a procedure, Paragraph 5; Deficiency - Failure to satisfy quorum requirement, Paragraph 10).
7903139323 Region I Form 12 (Rev. April 77)
.
.
,
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted C. Bleakney III, Technician J. Caola, Radiation Safety Officer R. Goloskie, Chainnan, RHSC S. Laflanne, Student (RO)
- L. Wilbur, Facility Director
- denotes those present at the exit interview.
2.
Organization, Logs and Records Facility organization and staffing, including changes made to licensed staff and observation of minimum staffing composition, were reviewed to verify conformance with the Technical Specification and 10 CFR 50 requirements.
Facility operating and maintenance logs, including records of process parameters, were reviewed to verify operation in accordance with the Technical Specification LC0 and administrative requirements. Materials used during this review included the 1977 Annual Operating Report; strip chart records of Log N from December 1,1977 to December 13,1978 and Linear Power from December 7,1977 to May 9,1978; facility procedures on the conduct of maintenance, and the Reactor Operator's Log Book from December 20, 1977 to December 19, 1978.
No inadequacies were identified and, except as noted below, the inspector had no further connents in this area.
a.
Staff Chances The following significant changes in facility staffing have been made or are anticipated:
(1) Mr. C. BleakneyEIII has been hired as a facility technician and is undergoing licensed operator training.
(2) Professor Mayer (SR0) returned to the facility following a prolonged absence.
No items of noncompliance were ~ identifie.
.
3.
Requalification Training The inspector reviewed the annual requalification examinations, including a sampling of the answers given, for three licensed operators during CY 1978.
Two licensed operators did not partici-pate in the requalification program due to graduation and the Facility Director stated that, due to absences of greater than four months, they would not be allowed to resume licensed activities if they returned.
Two other licensed operators (one senior) who had returned to the facility following absences of greater than four months in CY 1978, were reexamined by the Facility Director, and recertified by OLB, NRR following licensee written requests.
During a review of the examinations referenced above, the inspector noted that oral examination on the aspects of the emergency plan was documented.
The inspector questioned the licensee concerning when periodic reading of facility procedures and applicable portions of the regulations was accomplished.
The licensee stated that this was perfonned annually prior to the examination and that a checklist would be developed to document this reading.
This item is unresolved (134/78-01-01) pending implementation of the checklist.
4.
Observation of Reactor Startup and Facility Tour a.
Startup The inspectors witnessed a reactor startup performed on December 19, 1978, including the completion of the startup checklist.
The startup procedure included the surveillance requirements of TS Section 12.1 to ensure that the two safety channels, the log N channel, and the console annunciator system are operable.
No unacceptable conditions were identified.
b.
Facility Tour An inspection tour of the facility was conducted with the reactor at full power (10 Kw) to perform a radiation survey and confirm posting in accordance with 10 CFR 20.
The survey was conducted in the Reactor Room with an NRC instrument (Eberline E-120, Serial #1268) and radiation fields were measured in the following areas:
pool surface, pool rail, bridge, ion exchanger column, beam tube and thermal column.
A neutron survey was also perfonned using a licensee instrument (Snoopy, NPl Detector). A maximum reading of 0.6mr/hr was recorded at the end of the thermal column during 10 Kw oper-ation.
No unacceptable conditions were identifie.
5.
Procedures The inspector reviewed facility procedures on a sampling basis to ensure that the latest revisions were available, technically adequate, reviewed and approved as required.
Reactor Facility procedures were checked against the Radiation Safety Officer's copies of procedures and were all the same revision. The inspectors observed performance of a Reactor Start-up (Paragraph 4) in accordance with the approved procedure and to verify that the procedure accomplished the intended function.
The inspector requested that a licensee representative walk through a procedure to regenerate the pool water demineralizer resin. The procedure used was undated and was not approved by the RHSC. Although the procedure would accomplish the intended function (Regeneration of resin) important aspects were not addressed, such as release of potentially radioactive liquid to the city sewers. The inspector noted that resins had been regenerated during January and September of 1977 and January 1978 and that the resin was replaced during August 1978.
Results of licensee's sample analysis during these periods showed no detectable radio-activity in the liquid sample taken for the release.
Failure of the RHSC to approve this maintenance procedure is an item of noncompliance (134/78-01-02).
6.
Experiments Experiments conducted since the last inspection in this area were classroom excercises of routine nature and power level calibrations (flux measurements).
The inspector reviewed the Reactor Log from November 28, 1977 to December 12, 1978 to determine the extent of experimentation, and verify that materials, time irradiated, reactor power level, and reactivity worths (regulating rod motion, moderator worth experiments only) were recorded.
Typical experiments included flux plots, reactor physics, neutron radiography (beam port), and sample activation (vitamins, Au foils, aspirins, Cu metal, lead, various salts, pottery, polyethelene).
The inspector asked to see the RHSC approvals of these routine experiments.
The licensee stated that these items had been approved by the RHSC, however, documentation was not available in the meeting minutes.
The inspector noted that routine experiment approval had been placed on the agenda for the 1978 RHSC meetings.
This item is unresolved (134/78-01-03) pending formal RHSC review and documentation of routine experiment approval.
Surveillance The inspector interviewed licensee personnel and reviewed facility procedures, records and chart recordings to verify that surveillance testing had been completed in accordance with Technical Specification requirements.
Surveillance procedures were reviewed for technical adequacy and to assure that the procedures reflect as-built conditions.
The review included parameters identified in the Technical Specifi-cation as Limiting Conditions for Operation which do not have an established surveillance frequency.
Surveillance testing associated with the following Technical Specification items was reviewed:
TS 4.1, Reactor pool water level and temperature.
--
TS 4.2, Reactor pool water chemistry and activity.
--
TS 5.1.1, Reactor geometry.
--
TS 5.2, Core excess reactivity.
--
TS 5.4, Neutron source and interlocks.
--
--
TS 6.E, Ooerable nuclear instrument channels.
,
TS 6.8, Rod insertion times.
--
TS 7.1, Operable area radiation monitors.
--
TS 7.2, Operable portable survey instruments.
--
TS 10.1, Staffing during reactor operation.
--
TS 12.1, Pre-operational checks.
--
TS 12.2, Semi-annual reactor inspections.
--
--
TS Table 1, Safety System Functions.
Materials used during this review included the following:
--
Excess Reactivity Measurement Procedure, RHSC, March,1978.
Reactor Checkout and Operation, RHSC, June,1977.
--
Calibration of Console Instrumentation by Foil Activation,
--
January, 1976.
Power Level Calibration Procedure, RHSC, January,1976.
--
pH Meter Calibration Procedure, RHSC, January,1976.
--
Pool Water Conductivity Meter and Probe Calibration Check,
--
RHSC, October,1976.
Fuel Unloading Procedure, RHSC, January, 1976.
--
Fuel Reloading to Standard Configuration, RHSC, January, 1976.
--
Rod Drop Measurement Procedure, RHSC, January, 1976.
--
Form 2, excess reactivity, October 12, 1978 and April 24, 1978.
--
Fonn 3, power level, April 24, 1978, July 17, 1978, and October
--
12, 1978.
Reactor Facility Radiation Survey Sheets, October 12, 1978.
--
Form 4, pH instrument calibration,* April 24, 1978 and October
--
12, 1978.
Form 10, annual inspection report, October 12, 1978.
--
Form 15, material status report, July 17, 1978 and October 9,
--
1978.
-
--
Form 6, reactor facility inspection, January 30,1978 and July 17,1978.
Form 13, fuel inventory, July 17, 1978.
--
--
Reactor Startup Checklist for 1978.
Reactor Operator's Log Book for the period of December 20, 1977
--
to December 19, 1978.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
.
.
8.
Radiation Controls The inspector interviewed licensee personnel and reviewed facility logs and records to ascertain whether the licensee's radiation protection and contamination control program were.in conformation with regulatory requirements.
The following areas were inspected.
Radiation control procedures were reviewed for technical
--
adequacy.
Posting and labeling in accordance with 10 CFR 20.
--
Restricted are a marking, including designation of radiation
--
areas, high radiation areas, and radioactive material work areas.
General access control.
--
Contamination control, including use of protective clothing
--
and exit monitoring.
Use of personal monitoring devices.
--
.
--
Instructions provided to non-licensed personnel on health protection associated with radiation.
Comparison of inspector radiation surveys with recent licensee
--
surveys.
Radiation dosimetry and survey instrument calibration programs.
--
Personnel exposure.
--
Practices for neutron exposure monitoring.
--
a.
References The following procedures, records and instruments were inspected for this review.
--
Safety Rules for Operation in the Reactor Laboratory, RHSC, March, 197 Air Sampling Procedure, RHSC, February,1978.
Wipe Test Procedure, RHSC, January, 1978.
--
Portable Monitoring Instrument Calibration Procedure,
--
RHSC, January, 1977.
Precedure for Accepting Delivery of Commerically Prepared
--
Isotopes, RHSC, January, 1978.
RSO Weekly Reactor Facility Inspection, RHSC, January,
--
1978.
-
Radiation Survey Sheets for May,1978.
--
Farm 1, Area Monitor and Pool Level Monitor, January,
--
1978 April,1978, July,1978, and October,1978.
Form 14, RSO Quarterly Report, April,1978, July,1978,
--
and October, 1978.
Form 5, Survey Instrument Calibration Data, January,
--
1978, February, 1978 April, 1978, July, 1978, October, 1978, November,1978, and associated Certificates of Calibration by Health Physics Association, Ltd.
Form 7, Campus Wipe Test, January,1978, and July,1978.
--
--
Form 8, Sealed Soyrce Wipe Tests, January,1978, July, 1978, and PuBe n Source Check, January, 1978.
Form 9, Activities and Releases, January,1978, and July,
--
1978.
--
Form 12, Evacuation Drills, April,1978, and July,1978.
Visitor Exposure Records from December 1,1977 to Decem-
--
ber 19,1978.
--
Radiation Exposure Record File from January,1978 to December,1978, including contractor reports of monthly film badge processing.
Cutie Pie Survey Instrument (5I), SN 1290.
--
.
.
Cutie Pie SI, SN 767.
--
Victoreen Radtector III SI, SN 623.
--
Nuclear Chicago SI, WPI 70753.
--
Tracerlab Snoopy Neutron Monitor SI, SN 5097.
--
Victoreen Minirad SI, SN 385.
--
Within the scope of the above, no items of noncompliance were identified and, except as noted below, the inspector had no further comments in this area.
b.
Neutron Monitoring Practices Recent concerns identified in the nuclear industry in regard to adequacy of relying solely on NTA film for personnel neutron monitoring were discussed with the licensee.
The inspector noted, through discussions with licensee personnel and a review of film badge exposure reports, that NTA film is used to provide personal neutron dose monitoring at the facility.
The licensee stated, however, that no significant neutron doserates have been measured with the reactor operating at full power during previous radiation surveys.
The inspectors confirmed this conclusion through a survey conducted at the facility on December 19, 1978 usin survey instrument (Snoopy-SN 5097)g the licensee's portable Further, in that the
.
facility is almost exclusively used as a training aid, with no appreciable research work planned or in progress, the potential for personnel neutron exposures grLater than those measured from the surveys appears neglegible.
The inspector had no further comments on this item.
c.
Personnel Pocket Dosimeters The inspector noted during this review that no administrative procedures are established governing the calibration of pocket dosimeters. Additionally, no formal program exists to conduct dosimeter calibrations other than through a student lab assign-ment completed once or twice per year (contingent upon course offering). During the student lab. all Bocket dosimeters (a total cf 43) are calibrated against a Co 0 source having a o
.
.
known (calibrated) source strength.
The inspector reviewed this item for compliance with 10 CFR 20, Sections 20.101, 20.201, 20.202, 20.401, and 20.403, and Regulatory Guide 8.4, Direct Reading and Indirect Reading Pocket Dosimeters, February 26, 1973. Regulatory Guide 8.4 provides guidance on acceptable practices regarding the selection, use, and maintenance of pocket dosimeters.
Eleven individuals, from both the facility staff and the student body, have permanently assigned film badges.
For these individuals, the use of pocket dosimeters serves as a backup method for personnel monitoring.
For all other individuals who enter the facility, the pocket dosimeter provides the primary method for monitoring personnel exposure.
Based on a review of the Visitor exposure record and the Radiation Exposure Record Fiie for 1978, the inspector -
noted that no exposures attributable to work conducted at the reactor facility approached the limits established by 10 CFR 20.101.
The need for additional controls and/or administrative require-ments should future facility operation lead to personnel exposures significantly greater than that experienced to date were discussed with the licensee.
This area will be reexamined after licensee evaluation.
9.
IE Circular 77-14, Separation of Contaminated Water Systems The inspectors determined that the licensee had received this circular dealing with the separation of the reactor water from potable water systems and had reviewed the circular for applica-bili +f.
Although the reactor water does not contain contaminated water as demonstrated by licensee and independent analysis, the interconnection between these systems contains a vacuum breaker above pool water level preventir.g siphoning of pool water into portable water systems.
No unacceptable conditions were identified.
10.
Review and Audits Facility review and audit functions were reviewed to ascertain compliance with Technical Specification requirements.
Except as noted below, no inadequacies were identified in this are.
a.
The inspector reviewed minutes of meetings held by the Radi-ation Health, and Safeguards Committee on the following dates:
January 30, 1978
.
February 10, 1978 April 27,1978 July 17, 1978 October 12, 1978 Meeting frequently and quorum were reviewed to determine consistency with RHSC Procedural Rules, dated January 23, 1976.
The RHSC Procedural Rules require a quorum of four members for the RHSC. Members are appointed by the Administration.
The inspector reviewed the list of 1978-1979 Standing Committees and noted the following appointed members for the RHSC:
Mssrs. V. Bluemel, T. Crusberg, R. Goloskie (Chairman), R.
Sisson (Secretary), J. Caola, G. Pierce, L. Wilbur (ex officio),
and J. Mayer.
For the July 17, 1978 meeting, only three members were present plus Dean R. Bolz (Dean of Faculty).
The inspector noted that although Dean Bolz may appoint committee members, he was not an RHSC member, and therefore, the quorum requirements were not satisfieu.
This is an item of noncompliance (134/78-01-04).
b.
Technical Specification 9.2 requires the RHSC to conduct, at least quarterly, audits of operations, equipment performance, records, and procedures.
Audits take the form of periodic reports of required tests and results made by the Facility Director to the RHSC.
These reports are reviewed at RHSC meetings and supplemented by semi-annual tours and inspections, including log reviews, made by the Committee.
The inspector reviewed the results of RHSC Inspections conducted on January 30, 1978 and July 17, 1978.
No unacceptable conditions were identifie *
.
c.
The inspector noted that no design changes had been effected at the facility.
fio unacceptable conditions were identified.
11. Unresolved Item An item about which more information is required to determine acceptability is considered unresolved.
Paragraphs 3 and 6 contain unresolved items.
.
12. Exit Interview The inspector held a meeting with Professor Wilbur at the conclusion of the inspection to discuss the inspection scope and findings.
The items of noncompliance and unresolved items were identified.