IR 05000150/1980002
| ML19310A784 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Ohio State University |
| Issue date: | 05/07/1980 |
| From: | Baker K, Ridgway K NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19310A775 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-150-80-02, 50-150-80-2, NUDOCS 8006230113 | |
| Download: ML19310A784 (5) | |
Text
~
O U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
' REGION III Report No. 50-150/80-02 Docket.No. 50-150 License No. R-75 Licensee: Ohio State University 161 Hitchcock Hall 2070 Neal Avenue Columbus, OH 43201 Facility Name: Nuclear Reactor Laboratory Inspection Conducted: April 16-17, 1980 Inspector R R d way g
/8
/'
W Approved By: K. R. Baker, Acting Section Chief
[8 Projects Section 3-2
'/
Inspection Summary Inspection on April 16-17, 1980 (Report No. 50-150/80-02)
Areas Inspected: Routine, unannounced inspection of licensee's organi-zaticn; logs and records; reactor surveillance; requalification training; reviews and audits; procedures; and experiments. The inspection involved 16 inspector-hours onsite by one NRC inspector.
Results: No items of noncompliance were found in any of the six areas inspected.
8006280 %
.-
j
'
DETAILS
.
.
1.
Personnel Contacted
- B. K. Hajek, Associate Director of the Nuclear Reactor Laboratory
- R. D. Myser,. Manager, Reactor Operations
'
- Denotes licensee representatives attending exit interview.
2.
Organization, Logs and Records The inspector by direct observation or review of log records, and
. organization charts verified that:
Minimum staffing as described'in the Technical Specifications a.
and/or Hazards Summary Report was met during operations or fuel manipulations.
b.-
Required organization changes have been reported.
c.
Significant problems or incidents were reported or documented.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
3.
Reviews and Audits The licensee's review and audit program records were examined by the-inspector to verify that:
a.
Reviews of facility changes, operating and maintenance proce-dures,-design changes, and unreviewed experiments had been conducted by a safety review committee as required by Technical
. Specifications or ~ Hazards Summary Report.
b.
That the review and audit committee was composec ri qualified members and that quorum requirements for meetings and audits were met.
c.
Required safety audits had been conducted in accordance with Technical Specification requirements and that any identified problems were resolved.
The inspector was provided with a draft of a proposed revision to Chapter 2 of the Hazards Summary Report (HSR) Reactor Operations, and more specifically;to section 2.1, Administrative Controls. The revision more clearly established responsibilities of personnel and
.
2-
-
t s
w
._
__
.
the Advisory Committee on Reactor Operations (ACRO) and~ it's audit
.
. subcommittee. The inspector noted that subcommittee audit reports have not been completed in a timely manner, the last taking 4\\
months to be approved.
It was suggested that an audit report dead-line be established in the HSR revision. The inspector noted that the Operations Manager responded to the numerous ACR0 recommenda-tions and audit subcommittee findings of deficiencies; taking im-mediate corrective actions where possible. But many items that could not be immediately corrected had not been given priorities nor tracked to assure a future resolution.
The inspector also noted that the last subcommittee audit had been conducted on August 23, 1979. The ACR0 had established an audit frequency of six months, however neither the Technical Specifica-tions or HSR specify audit frequency. The aforementioned HSR re-vision,-when approved, will establish a semiannual audit frequency.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
4.
Requalification Training The inspector reviewed Administrative Procedure AP-9, Operator Requalification Program, logs, training records, and interviewed personnel to verify that the requalifications program was being carried out as required by regulations, Technical Specifications and the HSR.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
5.
Procedures The inspector reviewed the following procedures to determine if the procedures were issued, reviewed, updated and approved in accordance with Technical Specifications and HSR requirements; also that pro-cedure changes were reviewed and approved properly, a.
Administrative Procedures AP-1 Obtaining Use of the OSURR, 12/77; AP-3 Filing Requests for Reactor Operations, 1/78; AP-6 Procedure Writing and App-
_
royals, 4/80; AP-7 Review of Procedures, 12/77; AP-8 ACR0 Audits,'5/77; AP-9 Operator Requalification Program, 11/74; AP-13 Personnel Required for Reactor Operations,12/77 b.
Procedures for General Reactor Operations and Maintenance OM-1 Reactor Power Change Procedures, 1/76; OM-2 Emergency Procedures, 9/77; OM-61 PuBe Source Removal (MP-20), 4/68;
-3-
' -
-
-
-_
.-
l
' '
c.
Instrumentation Use and Maintenance Procedures-I-1 Routine Checks of Control and Scram Instrumentation, 6/75; I-2 Adjusting Reactor Control Instrumentation Meter Zeros, 6/67; I-3 OSURR Prestartup Checkout Procedures, 5/76;.I-6 Ure of Bypasses and jumpers,12/77 During the procedure review the inspector determined that:
(1) The newly revised procedure AP-6, Procedure Writing and Approvals did not address temporary procedure changes and that procedure I-2, Adjusting Reactor Control Instrumentation Meter Zeros, had a penciled change which was not initialed nor dated. The change was determined not to be of safety significance.
(2) The procedure index lists several procedures that have not been developed.
(3) There are several cases where procedure numbers are cross referenced and numbers changed in pencil lead-ing to two procedures with the same number, I-6.
The above items were discussed with licensee representatives at the exit interview and it was indicated the procedure system was being upgraded and these items would be resolved.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
6.
Surveillance Program The inspector reviewed procedures, surveillance tests schedules and records of tests and discussed the program with responsible per-sonnel to verify that procedures were inplace and tests were comp-leted and documented as required by Technical Specifications and the HSR.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
7.
Experiments The-inspector determined by reviewing procedures, requests for ex-periments and irradiations and completed logs and records that ex-periments_and reactor operations were properly reviewed and app-roved. Completed Forms EES-06, Requests for Reactor Operation, from 1691 to 1706 were reviewed.
No_ items of noncompliance were identified.
-4-
_
.,
,
-.
,
.
.
8.
. Management Interview
~ A' management interview was conducted with the licensee rep-resentatives, as-denoted in Paragraph 1, at the conclusion of the inspection. The scope and findings of the inspection were sum-marized.
a-5-
,
+45.
S Ag
- +-
-
,-v'--
-