IR 05000139/1979001
| ML19305A274 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000139 |
| Issue date: | 01/26/1979 |
| From: | Canter H, Faulkenberry B, Miller L NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19305A272 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-139-79-01, 50-139-79-1, NUDOCS 7903120467 | |
| Download: ML19305A274 (4) | |
Text
,
.
.
.
n U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSFECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
REGION V
Report No. 50-139/79-01 50-139 R-73 Docket No.
ticong, go, Safeguards Group University of Washington Licensee:
Seattle, Washington Facility Name:
Research Reactor, Argonaut Inspection at: University of Washington, Seattle, Washington Inspection conducted:
January 9.-11, 1979
/-22-79 Inspectors :
(
-
"L/ F. Miller, Reactor Inspector Date Signe'd N
/ -Iz-7c, H. L. Canter, Reactor Inspector Date Signer Date Signed Approved By
.)
e d ~, %
/-M '79 li. H. Faulkenberry, Ch ef,' Reactor Project Date Signed s
Section 2, Reactor Ope ations and Nuclear Support Branch Summary:
Inspection on January 9-11, 1979 (Report No. 50-139/79-01)
Areas Inspected: Routine, unannounced inspection of organization, logs, and records; review and audit; requalification training; pro-cedures; surveillance; experiments; and independent inspection, including a facility tour.
This inspection involved 28 inspector-hours by two URC inspectors.
Results: Of the seven areas inspected, no apparent items of noncompliance or deviations were identified in six areas; one apparent item of non-compliance (Infraction - failure to perform an annual co mittee audit
- Paragraph 6) was identified in one area.
RV Form 719(?)
790312 0 Y67
.
.
e DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted
- Professor W. Chalk, Director, Nuclear Engineering Laboratory -
- Mr. W. Miller, Assistant Director for Reactor Operations Mr. C. Carrier, Assistant Director for Facilities Engineering Ms. D. Hankins, Senior Reactor Operator
- Denotes those present at the exit interview.
2.
Organization, Records and Logs No changes to the facility organization occurred in 1978.
There were four senior reactor operators and one reactor operator licensed for this reactor facility.
The records of operations for the period since the previous in-spection (January 4-6,1978) were examined.
These records included the operating procedures, the reactor " CAL" log, pre-startup checklists, requests for operations forms, maintenance and surveil-lance logs and the experiment log.
The data in the 1977 Annual Report was also confirmed.
A review of the " CAL" log indicated that the " noisy log N" problem returned in May, 1978 (See IE Reports 78-01 and 77-01).
The licensee exchanged the log and linear neutron flux detectors' locations to determine if the source of this noise was the log detector.
After experimenting with the detectors and their high voltage connectors, the licensee replaced the log N detector with the same model spare.
No noise problems have appeared since this was completed on September 11, 1978.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
3.
Requalification Training The inspector examined the operator requalification training records for 1978.
The info mation in these records showed that the operators were requalified through examination as provided for in the licensee's program.
TSe requalification examinations were found to address the requireo subject matter. The records indicated that the in-dividual operators had performed checkouts and manipulations of reactor controls as required by the aoproved program.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identifie.
.
-2-
.
.
.
4.
Surveillance, The following licensee requirements were included in the inspector's examination of the facility records:
Item Requirements Reactor Startup Checkoff Weekly when Operating BF3 Plateau Plots Monthly pH & Conductivity of Shield Tanks Water Monthly Coolant Flow Rate 3> 0.2 gpm/KW Calibrate Log N & Period Amplifier Quarterly Check Linearity of Power Recorders Semiannually The procedures used to verify some of these items were examined for technical adequacy.
The inspectors verified that the results of the surveillance items were checked for errors, reviewed and accepted in accordance with the licensee's standards.
Cases existed where the person performing the surveillance was the reviewer.
The licensee stated that an independent review of *he surveillance results will be made in the future.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
5.
Procedures The inspector performed a review of the technical adequacy of procedures, and of adherence to these procedures by licensed operators.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
6.
Review and Audit The minutes of the Nuclear Reactor Advisory Committee meeting dated May 1, 1978 were examined.
The modification to Vertical Hole No. 2 was examined and discussed with a licensee representative.
The licensee stated that the sketch which reflects this modification on the record copy of the plan for Vertical Hole No. 2 would be formally incorporated into that plan.
(0 pen)
-
.-
.
_
-3 Technical Specification VIII, G.3 requires that "an intensive in-
,
depth review of facility operations shall be made at least annually by a representative of the Reactor Facilities Advisory Comittee, usually the Radiological Safety Officer." Contrary to the above, this review was not performed between February, 1976 and March, 1978, a period of approximately 25 months.
This is an infraction.
7.
Research Reactor Experiments The Annual Report of the licensee dated January 20, 1978 was re-viewed, and compared to the " Cal Log" for the year 1977.
In addition, the " Cal Log" was examined through January 9,1979.
One significant modification to the ongoing N0DAR experiment was made and used during this period. This modification was described by the licensee in " Update to NODAR III Procedure" dated October 17, 1978.
The reactivity worth of this modification was measured experimentally when the modified experiment was run.
After discussions with the inspectors, a licensee representative stated that, in the future, the reactivity of this experiment or any subsequent significant modification, would be calculated prior to it being performed.
As discussed earlier in this report, the licensee replaced the erratically operating Westinghouse Type 6377 compensated ion chamber used as the logarithmic flux detector.
The licensee stated that compensating voltage for this detector was set at -25 volts and high voltage was set at +600 volts because these voltages were the ones which had been used on previous detectors of the same type.
Further, the licensee stated that prior to replacing the existing detectors with a different manufacturer's model, a written safety evaluation of the substitution would be performed.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
8.
Independent Inspection The inspectors walked through the facility to observe activities and experiments in progress, and to inspect the state of cleanliness, housekeeping, and radioactive material storage.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
9.
Exit Interview The inspectors met with licensee representatives (Paragraph 1) at the conclusion of this inspection on January 11, 1979.
The inspec-tors summarized the purpose, scope and findings of this inspection.