IR 05000139/1981005

IE Insp Rept 50-139/81-05 on 810615-17.No Noncompliance Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Organization,Logs & Records, Review & Audit,Requalification Training,Procedures, Surveillance & Experiments & Independent Insp

ML20010A603
Person / Time
Site:	05000139
Issue date:	07/07/1981
From:	Chaffee A, Thomas Young NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV)
To:
Shared Package
ML20010A598	List: IR 05000139/1981005 ML20010A597
References
50-139-81-05, 50-139-81-5, NUDOCS 8108110599
Download: ML20010A603 (4)

Text

.

a L'.

S. NUCLEAR REGUL GTORY COMMISSION

^

OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT

REGION V

Raport No.

50-139/81-05 Docket f!o.

50-139 License No.

R-73 Safeguards Group Licensee:

University of Washington Seattle, Washington Facility Name:

Research Reactor. Arconaut Inspection at:

University of Washinaton. Seattle. Washinaton Inspection conducted:

June 15-17. 1981 i

h

~7!d!Il Inspectors:

~A. E. Chaffee(' Reactor Inspector

' Date Signed Date Signed 7/7

/

Approved by:

M_

%

T'. Young, Acting;;hief, R@ty B%nchtpfProjectsSection2

/ Q6te Signed Reactor Operati#s Projec Summary:

Inspection on June 15-17, 1981 (Report No. 50-139/81-05)

Areas Inspected: Routine, unannounced inspection of organization, logs and records; review and audit; requalification training; procedures; surveillance; experiments and independent inspection, incl

~ng a facility tour. This inspection involved 16 inspector-hours by one NRC inspector.

Resul ts_: Of the seven areas inspected, no apparent items of noncompliance or deviatione were identified.

,

8100110599 810707 PDR ADOCK 05000139 G

PDR.

RV Form 219 (2)

.-.

-

.

'

.

DETAILS 1.

Persons Con.tacted Professor D. McFeron, Chairman, Nuclear Reactor Advisory Committee Professor W. Chalk, Director, Nuclear Engineering Laboratory Mr. W. Miller, Assistant Directc: for Reactor Operations Mr. D. Fry, Electronic Equipment Supervisor Mr. S. Swccpe, Reactor Operator 2.

Organization, Records and Logs The facility organization has remained unchanged since the last inspection.

Two senior reactor operator license renewals and one reactor operato.'

initial license were granted since the previous inspection.

Presently there are two senior reactor operators and one reactor operator.

The licenset has also submitted an application for an initial reactor operator lict nse for Mr. D. Fry.

The records of operation for the period since the last inspection (February 19-22,1980) were examined.

These records included the operating procedures, the reactor " Cal and Experiment" log, pre-startup checklists, request for operations forms and maintenance and surveillance logs.

The date in the 1980 Annual Report was also confirmed.

No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.

3.

Review and Audit The minutes of the Nuclear Reactor Advisory Committee meeting during 1980 was examined. The committee met on March 13, 1980. The following two items were discussed:

a.

(LER 79-01) The progress of the drying process to remove water spilled into the carbon moderator of the core was discussed The event and initial corrective action was evaluated during inspection (50-136/80-01). The committee stated that the reactivity effect of the spilled water had decreased from.46 percent sk/K in December 1979 to.09 percent S k/K by mid-March. The committee concluded that this was well within operating limits, b.

Nuclear Reactor Annual Inspection Report: This report was performed under the direction of Michael J. O'Brien, University Radiological Safety Officer.

This report addressed the need to r-initiate a University required annual environmental program which had been discontinued. The committee agreed to reinitiate tnis program.

.

-. -

.

...

.

.. -..

.-.. -..... -

- ---

_ _ _ - _

_ _______ ______

.

.-

_2_

The committee also met on June 1,1931.

However, the minutes were not yet available for review.

,

No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.

4.

Requalification Training The inspector reviewed the requalification records since the last inspection.

The information in these records showed that the operators were requalified through examination as provided for in the licensee's program. The inspector reviewed the content of the examinations and found that two areas, plant protection systems and plant instrumentation and control system, were not specifically covered.

The licensee agreed to revise his cequalification exams to include all applicable sections listed in 10 CFR 55 Appendix A.

The inspector also noted that the requalification exans sometimes require the examinee to propose questions for fu,ure

,

exams.

The inspector stated that this type of question could only make up a portion of each exam and the answer to each question submitted should generally be required.

Further, the coverage provided by the remainder of the exam needs to be consistent with the experience level of the most inexperienced operator taking the exam.

For example, if the exam is given to only very experienced operators then the exam should contain at least a minimum coverage by conventional questions in each area.

The records showed that the individual operators had performed checkouts and manipulations of reactor controls as required by the approved program.

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.

Specifically, the inspector observed a checkout o' the facility prior to operation, startup and operation at 18 KW.

No items of noncompliance or devia. ions were identified.

6.

Surveillance The insnocta '- examination of the facility records showed that the surveillance requirements had been performed in accordance with the requirements of the technical specification.

No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.

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

_

_

. _ _

.

i

.-

-3-7.

Experiments The inspector examined greater.than 20 percent of the experiments and irradiations conducted over the period from the previous inspection to this inspection. Through examination of the records and discussions with facility personnel, the inspector verified that all experiments and irradiations had been reviewed and approved in accordance with procedures and technical specification requirements.

.,.

There were no special tests or new experiments carried out under 10 CFR 50.59 during this inspection period.

No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.

• 8.

Independent Inspection

,

The inspector noted that the door opening from the hallway, outside the control room, to the balcony, outside the building, would not always latch.

The licensee committed to provide a means of insuring this door was shut properly. The inspector also noted that the door to the reactor compartment seemed to have some problem in' shutting.

The licensee agreed to improve the shutting characteristics of this door.

The inspector observed a graduate student very rapidly surveying himself for radioactivity. The licensee stated that this was an isolated case but more emphasis will be given to assure a careful self-survey.

No items of noncompliance or deviations we.ae identified.

9.

Exit Interview The inspector. met with Professor Chalk and Mr. Miller at the conclusion of the inspection on June 17, 1981, for the purpose of discussing the scope and finding of the inspection.

At this meeting,the licensee made the committments discussed in paragraphs four and eight.

..

.

.

.

.

.

. _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.