IR 05000134/1993001
| ML20045D799 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000134 |
| Issue date: | 06/18/1993 |
| From: | Bores R, Holmes S NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20045D797 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-134-93-01, 50-134-93-1, NUDOCS 9306300072 | |
| Download: ML20045D799 (6) | |
Text
_
..
.
_
_ _ _ _. _
_
_ _ - _ -
_
_ _
!
.
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION I
!
Report No. 50-134/934)1 Docket No. 50-134 License No. Edil Licensee: Worcester Polytechnic Institute Worcester. Massachusetts Facility Name: Nuclear Reactor Facility Inspection At: Worcester.MA Inspection Conducted: June 8-10.1993 N
/ h Inspector:
,
i Stephen W. Holmes, Radiation Specialist Date j
Effluents Radiation Protection Section (ERPS)
l Facilities Radiological Safety I
and Safeguards Branch (FRSSB)
/
0!/
Approved By:
~
Robert Bore's Chief, ERPS, FRSSB '
Date Division of diation Safety and Safeguards Areas Inspected: The areas examined included staffing, reactor logs, operating procedures, operator requalification program, surveillances, control of experiments, maintenance and design changes, oversight and emergency planning.
Results:
No safety concerns or violations of NRC regulatory requirements were identified.
9306300072 930623 PDR ADOCK 05000134 G
PDR I
-
_
_
-
..
..
-
-
--
...
.
.
DETAIIE 1.0 Individuals Contacted
- K. Beagle, Assistant Radiation Safety Officer E. Bihingsley, Reactor Operator
- L. Bobek, Nuclear Reactor Facility Director (NRFD)
- R. Goloskie, Radiation, Health, and Safeguards Committee Chairman J. Hanlon, Jr., Director of Public Safety (DPS), Worcester Polytechnic Institute (WPI)
- J. Mayer, Jr., Nuclear Engineering Program Director E. Preble, Reactor Operator 2.0 Status of Previousiv Identified items 2.1 (Closed) Inspector Follow-up Item (IFI 50-134/91-02-01) The licensee's
'
procedure for the annual control blade inspection lacked specific inspection / acceptance criteria with no standard data reporting form. The procedure had been updated and contained specific criteria for inspection acceptance and a standard form for recording the required resultant data. This item is closed.
2.2 (Closed) Inspector Follow-up Item (IFI 50-134/92-01-01) The facility neutron meter's electror.ic calibration was isotopically checked by the vendor on only the middle two of its four ranges. This was not in accordance with ANSI Standards and could not be verified to meet the manufacturer's recommendations. It was verified that the manufacturer's calibration procedure only requires an isotopic check at one point. Therefore, since the vendor's isotopic check exceeds the manufacturer's requirements, this procedure is acceptable. This item is closed.
3.0 Staffine j
Technical Specifications (TS) Section 2.2 (1) require a minimum of two persons in the reactor facility, one of whom must hold a Reactor Operator (RO) or Senior Reactor i
Operator (SRO) license, and a SRO readily available on call during reactor operations.
The current operations staff consisted of six personnel; two permanent staff (the NRFD and the Nuclear Engineering Program Director) and four students. Both permanent staff members held SRO licenses, two students held Reactor Operator (RO)
licenses, and the other two were RO trainees. The staff was qualified and possessed the technical expertise to perform the duties required by the license. No safety concerns or violations were identified.
i
,
_.
..
.. -
.,,. - _... _ _.. _, _ _
. ~,.
-
.._ _~.....,,, _.. _.
.
4.0 Reactor Records Reactor operating records are required by Section 5.6 of the TS. The inspector audited these records, interviewed operators, and observed uses of logs during reactor power operations. Records of power level, operating periods, experiment information, unusual events, inadvertent scrams, calibration and maintenance procedures, and start-up and shut-down checks were being kept. Unplanned scrams were logged separately and individually evaluated by an SRO, as required, before resuming power operations. Reactor operating records and logs were being maintained as required by TS and written procedures. A specific Log Book Entry procedure had been written and was awaiting approval by the Radiation, Health, and Safeguards Committee (RHSC). This program enhancement will ensure that adequate j
direction would be available to the staff delineating information to be recorded.
Within the scope of this inspection, no safety concerns or violations were noted.
5.0 Ooeratim> Procedures Written procedures are required by Section 5.5 of the TS, and are required to be reviewed and approved by the RHSC prior to implementation and subsequent to any changes. The inspector reviewed the operational procedures, followed up on a previous item, interviewed staff members, and observed a reactor start-up, critical operation, power changes,.oanual scram, shut-down, and the operator's use of procedures and check sheets during these operations. The reactor operations were completed in accordance with the written procedures with careful attention to detail.
Implementation of and adherence to the procedures were in compliance with the TS and administrative requirements. Written procedures were available for all items required by TS. It was prominently noted in the procedures that safety was paramount and that the operators had the responsibility and authority to terminate power operations at any time for safety reasons. Procedure guidance on limits, action levels and acceptance criteria was scattered. The licensee's representatives stated that they would continue to evaluate guidance on limits, action levels and acceptance criteria. A full review and update of the procedures had just been performed by the NRFD. These new procedures were technically adequate, contained standard forms for recording data /results when appropriate, and had been separated into three procedure groupings - operating, maintenance, and health physics. This action was notable. The procedures will be implemented upon approval by the RHSC.
Overall, the licensee maintained acceptable written procedures. Within the scope of this inspection no safety concerns or violations were note _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _
.
.
1 6.0 Operator Reaualification Program The inspector reviewed the requalification program, examined training records and exams, and interviewed operators. The records were complete and in a accordance with the NRC-approved program. The inspector verified that all operators were at least performing the minimum reactor manipulations and participating in the required training classes. Due to student turnover, only the permanent staff completed the full two-year requalification program. The permanent staff fulfilled all requirement of the
)
program including an accelerated requalification of one member who was unable to perform the required reactor operations during one quarter. Exam questions demonstrated good technical depth. The licensee's method of tracking the operators'
time and operations on console was effective. The requalification program was being implemented adequately to ensure appropriate training of the operators. No safety concerns or violations were noted.
7.0 Surveillances The inspector reviewed selected records and procedures for the conduct of surveillances required by TS Section 3.0, " Surveillance Requirements". All surveillances were completed at the required intervals and specified parameters were within required limits. Surveillance results were documented on standard form and submitted to the RHSC for review and approval. This practice strengthened the Committee's ability to provide the required oversight to the reactor and is an excellent enhancement to the overall program. Within the scope of this review, the licensee's program for surveillances was effective. No safety concerns or violations were noted.
8.0 Control of Experiments The licensee's program for the control of experiments was reviewed with respect to the requirements in TS 2.3, and the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR). Since the WPI reactor is primarily a low power, ten-kilowatt thermal, teaching reactor, most experiments are older standard / routine operations outlined and approved in the FSAR. At present, the staff refers to the Log Book to ensure that a requested experiment had been previously performed and, thus, was an approved experiment.
New experiments are evaluated by the NRFD to determine if they match one of the approved experiments and, if not, they are sent to the RHSC for approval. Review of the minutes indicated that the Committee had approved experiments in the past.
However, the Committee's review of TS Section 2.3 experiment requirements were not formally documented. The licensee stated that, as a program upgrade, the licensee would formally document the RHSC's review of TS Section 2.3 experiment limitations and consolidate all FSAR and RHSC experiment approvals and evaluations into one file to use as a standard reference of approved experiments. This action will be verified in a future inspection. Within the scope of this review no safety concerns or violations were noted.
i
[
-
_-.
'
,
l i
9.0 Maintenance and Desien Changes The inspector examined maintenance and design change records applicable to maintenance procedures and information recorded in the log book. Routine
)
maintenance is covered under the surveillances required by TS. Maintenance or changes performed outside these procedures are evaluated by the NRFD and, when appropriate, referred to the RHSC for determining unreviewed safety questions pursuant to 10 CFR 50.59. The inspector reviewed the 10 CFR 50.59 change analysis for the recent console upgrade. The analysis was comprehensive, well documented, and met all requirement of 10 CFR 50.59 for insuring the changes involved no
,
'
unreviewed safety concerns. Procedures and documentation of changes and maintenance were adequate. No safety concerns or violations were noted.
10.0 Oversicht The inspector reviewed the Radiation, Health, and Safeguards Committee's minutes for the past year focusing on operational reactor oversight. The Committee's meeting schedule and membership satisfy TS and the Committee's procedural rules. Review of the minutes indicated the Committee was active in providing appropriate guidance, reviews cf operations, procedure and experiment approvals, and ensured suitable use of the reactor. The Committee performed it's duties as required by license, TS, and administrative requirements. The RHSC quarterly audit / walk-down of the facility, documented by Report Form 6, " Reactor Facility Inspection", is commendable.
11.0 Emercency Plannine The inspector reviewed the licensee's emergency plan, records of training and evacuation drills, current memoranda of understanding from the police, fire, and medical support agencies; and inspected the emergency facilities and equipment denoted in the plan. Contact was made with the WPI Department of Public Safety and the Worcester Fire Department. The inspector verified that the equipment, facilities, and training met the emergency plan requirements. The police and fire d:panments were cognizant of the response requirements of and potential hazards at the facility. Implementation procedures and police response information were adequate. Evacuation drills were performed as required and were reported to the RHSC for review and verification. As discussed in a previous inspection, drills, other than evacuation, to periodically test other aspects of the Emergency Plan should be considered by the licensee. The NRFD and the Director of Public Safety stated the this would be evaluated for a future drill. The two operators interviewed were knowledgeable of the Emergency Plan and their responsibilities during an emergency.
A newly revised Emergency Plan has just been approved by the RHSC and was awaiting approval by NRC Headquarters before being implemented. The plan followed guidance from Regulatory Guide 2.6 and ANSI /ANS-15.16 on Emergency Planning for Research Reactors. This indicated good licensee initiative.
The present NRC-approved Emergency Plan was being implemented as required. No safety concerns or violations were noted.
f
.*
~
e
i
,
12.0 Exit Interview The inspector met with the licensee representatives listed in Section 1.0 en June 10
,
1993, and summarized the scope and findings of this inspection, i
i i
l
.