IR 05000142/1980002
| ML19323G742 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000142 |
| Issue date: | 03/06/1980 |
| From: | Bagaglio M, Horn A, Sternberg D NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19323G729 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-142-80-02, 50-142-80-2, NUDOCS 8006060578 | |
| Download: ML19323G742 (5) | |
Text
.
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION q
OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT b
REGION V
Report No.
50-142/80-02 Docket No.
50-142 License No.
R-71 Safeguards Group Licensee:
University of California at Los Angeles Los Angeles, California 90024 Facility Name:
UCLA Research Reactor Inspection at:
UCLA Campus (Argonaut)
Inspection conducted: January 4, 1980 and February 13-14, 1980 Inspectors:
IYbn N
- C7 A.W. Horn, Reactor inspector Date Signed
,1 i gb 8(o,~aA.
&.)$90 M.JkBagy410, y or p pector Date Si'gned Date Signed
Sdb b
'
Approved B -
f D. M. St
' berg, Chief, Reactor Project Section 1 Date Signed
'
'
Sum: nary :
l Inspection on January 4, 1980 and February 13-14,1980 (Report No. 50-142/80-02)
i Areas Inspected: Routine, unannounced inspection of logs and records; review
,
and audit; requalification training; procedures; surveillance; experiments; followup on a reportable item; and independent effort.
This inspection involved 24 regular hours by two NRC inspectors.
Results: Of the areas examined, there were two possible items of noncompliance identified (see Appendix A and Paragraphs 7 and 8).
RV Form 219 (2)
800eoc es M q
G DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted
- N. Ostrander, Manager, Nuclear Energy Laboratory (NEL)
- W. Wegst, Director, Research and Occupational Safety
- A. Zane, Reactor Supervisor, NEL J. Horner, Health Physicist
- C. Ashbaugh, Senior Reactor Operator
- Denotes those present at the exit interview.
2.
Organization There are currently three senior reactor operators and five reactor operators licensed for this reactor facility.
Since the last inspection, there were three new reactor operator licenses issued and three licensed operators have left the facility (students who graduated).
3.
Review and Audit The minutes of the Radiation Use Committee (RUC) meetings since the last inspection were reviewed to verify that the RUC review and
audit functions are consistent with the requirements of the Technical Specifications. Meetings have been held at the frequency required by the Technical Specifications, and the membership of each meeting satisfied quorum requirements.
At the exit interview,,the inspector commented on the increased awareness of the NRC, huclear industry and general public of management functions and oversight.
Due to continuing problems at the UCLA facility (see paragraph 7 for example) the inspector pointed out that although the requirements for review and audit have been met, increased attention by the RUC to problem areas may improve timely and adequate resolution. The licensee stated that they would look into ways of improving followup.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were ihntified.
4.
Requalification Training The inspector, through review of records, verified that the requalification program is being performed in accordance with the approved program.
Records indicated satisfactory completion of lecture attendance and examinations by all participants.
There are also continuous records
maintained of each operator's reactivity manipulations indicating that all have been actively engaged as operators or senior operators.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
.
-2-
'5.
Experiments The inspector reviewed six of the current experiments. The experiments are described and reviewed on Experimental Safety Analysis (ESA)
forms in accordance with Technical Specifications. However, it was pointed out to the licensee at the exit interview that there is presently no provision on the ESA form for the estimation of the reactivity effect of the experiment prior to insertion into the reactor.
UCLA presently makes an actual measurement of the reactivity effect after insertion into the reactor.
Since there is a Technical Specification on the maximum reactivity worth of any single unconstrained experiment, the licensee agreed that this estimation could be added to their ESA review. It should be pointed out that no present experiment has a reactivity worth anywhere near the limit.
flo items of noncompliance or deviation were identified.
6.
Procedures One inspector reviewed the following procedures:
?!ormal Startup Standard Shutdown Temporary Shutdown Startup from Temporary Shutdown Prestartup Checkoff Interim Supplementary Ecuck/ Failed Rabbit Based on the review of the above procedures and operation of the facility, one deficient condition was noted in the Prestartup Checkoff. A specific step in this procedure checks the area radiation monitors (ARM).
In fact, this specific step only checks the ARM alarm module at the control console as determined by the reactor supervisor and the inspector. The licensee has committed to rewrite the Prestartup Checkoff Sheet to ensure the ARM's, including the detectors, are verified operable (80-02-01).
There were no items of noncompliance or deviations.
7.
Records and Logs An inspector reviewed the facility operating log for the periods of October 4, 1979, through October 18, 1979, and January 22, 1980, through January 29, 1980. The strip chart papers for the Linear Power Recorder and Log il Recorder for the period of October 4,1979, through October 18, 1979 were also reviewed.
Based on the above reviews, logkeeping by operators and review by supervisory personnel need improvement. This evaluation is based upon eight instances of logging errors noted during the inspector's review and not by the reactor supervisor during his review of the operating logs.
More specifically, four of eight log errors involved recordilg data that
_
-3-
.
.
indicated the facility licensed core power limit of 100 KW had been exceeded. The inspector reviewed the strip charts and ascertained that core power had not exceeded 100 KW. The reactor supervisor had conducted a training session on log keeping with operators on February 5, 1980, during which he discussed log keeping errors he had noted during his reviews.
Prestartup Checkoff Sheets for reactor startups conducted on October 9 and 12,1979, December 5, 1979, and the period January 7, 1980, through February 11, 1980, were reviewed by one inspector.
None of the Prestartup Checkoff Sheets completed in 1980 had been reviewed and/or signed by the reactor supervisor. Although no administrative requirement exists, discussion with the reactor supervisor indicated that he normally performs this review process once per week. The reactor supervisor indicated that he would review the prestartup checkoff sheets he missed and return to his normal review frequency.
During the review of operating logs for January 25, 1980, the inspector noted that tiie reactor control system had failed causing the regulating rod to drop from the 48% withdrawn to 18% withdrawn position. Subsequent to this excursion,without the cause for this abnormal event verified, the reactor was returned to a critical, full power condition.
Five minutes after return to full power, indications existed that perhaps the reactor safety amplifier was not functioning properly. The reactor subsequently was shutdown by the operators.
Review of this event, discussion with facility operators, and review of facility procedures revealed that an emergency procedure did not exist for a dropped rod or malfunction of the reactor safety system. This deficiency resulted in operators
,
not being aware that a reportable event had occurred, an uncontrolled
'
reactivity change.
In addition, the lack of procedural guidance eventually allowed the operators to return the reactor to full power operation only 10 minutes after an equipment malfunction, the cause of which had not been positively determined or corrected.
This lack of emergency procedures and failure to make two required reports to the NRC is an item of noncompliance delineated in Appendix A.
(This is an infraction 80-02-02).
Also during the review of the operating logs on January 25, 1980, the facility indicated that a rabbit had returned with a cracked cap.
Seemingly contrary to the facility Failed Rabbit Procedure, the reactor was not scrammed by securing the exhaust ventilation for the reactor.
Further discussion with the licensee determined that a cracked rabbit cap did not in itself constitute a failed rabbit.
Accordingly, the licensee acknowledged that the existing Failed Rabbit Procedure is ambiguous and has committed to rewrite the failed rabbit procedure to make it more explicit for operators.
(08-02-03)
i
-4-
.-
.-
8.
Surveillance One inspector reviewed the following surveillance:
a.
Post maintenance surveillance on the reactor safety amplifier.
b.
Neutron channel calibration.
Review indicated that the surveillance had been properly conducted.
The period between neutron channel calibrations, December 8,1978 to January 9,1980, did exceed the technical specification requirement of not to exceed twelve months. This is an item of noncompliance as delineated in Appendix A.
(This is an infraction 80-02-04)
9.
Followup on Licensee Reportable Item An " abnormal occurrence" (as defined by UCLA Tech. Specs.) took place on December 19,1979 (see letter A. Zane and N. Ostrander to R. Reid, December 26,1979). The inspector investigated the situation by a visit on January 4,1980 in order to better understand the problem and the recommended solution.
Since the Radiation Use Committee had not yet met on the final resolution, the inspector could only verify that appropriate action had been taken on an interim method to prevent recurrence.
During the inspection on February 13-14, 1980, the inspector reviewed subsequent actions and racommendations of the Radiation Use Committee (letter A. Zane to R. Reid, January 11,1980) to correct the problem.
Changes to the system, as recommended by the Radiation Use Committee, have not yet been completed, but will be inspected at a later date.
(0 pen Item 80-02-05)
10.
Exit Interview The inspectors met with the licensee representatives (denoted in paragraph 1) at the conclusicn of this inspection on February 14, 1980.
The inspectors summarized tneir findings including the apparent items of noncompliance (see part. graph 7 and 8).
)
i
!
_.