IR 05000160/1981001
| ML20030B472 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Neely Research Reactor |
| Issue date: | 04/21/1981 |
| From: | Butcher R, Julian C, Robert Lewis, Wray J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20030B467 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-160-81-01, 50-160-81-1, NUDOCS 8108180161 | |
| Download: ML20030B472 (7) | |
Text
.
o, UNITED STATES 8'
~t NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
$
E REGION 11
a 101 MARIETTA ST.. N.W., SulTE 3100 k
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303
.: s o
,,
.,
,
..
Report No. 50-160/81-01 Licensee: Georgia Institute of Technology 225 North Avenue Atlanta, GA 30332 Facility Name: Georgia Tech. Research Reactor (GTRR)
'
Docket No. 50-160 License No. R-97 Inspectors
/
'
C. Julian U (Tate Signed fm 4-Zo #2l Ri Butcher Date Signed Yoff)
/f m
ray f
D'a'te Signed hk/
Approved by 8. 6.
o; R. C. Lewi f,1cting Di rector, Date Signed Resident and Reactor Project Inspection SUMMARY Inspection on April 7 thru April 9,1981 Are: s Inspected This routine, unannounced inspection involved 49 inspector-hours on site in the
,
!
areas of Radiation Protection, IE Bulletins and Circulars, Reactor Operator Requalification, Surveillance Testing, Nuclear Safeguards Committee Functions, Log and Record Review, Annual Report, and Licensee Action on Previous Inspection
Findings.
l Results Of the eight areas inspected, no violations or deviations were identified in six areas; three violations were found in two areas; (Violation - Failure to perform surveillance within the required interval. Violation - Failure to have properly reviewed and approved surveillance procedures. Violation - Failure to maintain in effect an approved operator requalification program).
f
'
8108180161 810807~'
PDR ADOCK 05000160
_ _
-._.
.- -
e s
a DETAILS l'
1.
Persons Contacted Licensee Employees
- L. Weaver, Director, School of Nuclear Engineering
- J. Russell, Director, Nuclear Resecrch Center
.
- R. Kirkland, Reactor Supervisor & Associate Director
- R. Boyd, Rad *.ation Safety Officer Other licensee employees contacted included 2 operators.
- Attended exit interview 2.
Exit Interview The inspection scope and findings were suemarized on April 9,1981, with those persons indicated in paragraph 1 above. The licensee representatives acknowledged the violations. Each item was discussed in detail as described in the following paragraphs.
3.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings experiments and there is an ongoing a.
(Closed) Infraction (80-01-02).
is now reviewing significant program to better categorize experiments.
Based on.the inspectors findings, this item is closed. Alsc see item k. below, b.
(Closed) Infraction (80-01-04).
The monthly surveillance of the Emergency Core Cooling System (ECCS) has been accomplished since the last inspection period.
The inspection findings in this area are further discussed in paragraph 8.
This item is closed.
c.
(Closed) Unresolved Item (80-01-05). The licensee has conducted ECCS flow tests and has determined appropriate acceptance criteria. This item is closed.
d.
(Closed) Infraction (80-01-06).
The inspector reviewed the licensee reporting history since the last inspection and found no discrepancies.
This item is closed.
(Closed) Unresolved Item (80-03-01).
The licensee has developed a
e.
draft of the rod drop test procedure. The adequacy of the licensee's procedures program is further discussed ir paragraph 8.
This item is closed.
.
'l f.
(0 pen) Unresolved Item (80-03-02). There have been two audits con-ducted since this item wis originally opened and the minutes of the NSC meeting document the review and disposition of only one of these
_
-. __
_
. 1
...
_
. _ _ _ _ _ _._
-, _ _ _ _ _ _ _., _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _
_
9'
.a audits. A health physics audit was conducted on October 14,1580,for which there is no documentation of NSC review and dispbsition.
Discussions with the Radiological Safety Officer revealed that the audit questions were resolved to the satisfaction of the auditor and the results were discussed with the NSC but this action was not documented in the NSC mecting minutes. This item remains open pending further review during a future inspection.
g.
(Closed) Inspector Followup Item (80-01-07).
The licensee has committed all surveillances to the review of a SRO. The inspector had no further, questions in this area. This item is closed.
h.
(Closed) Infraction (80-01-11). Discussions with the licensee confirm that the flux monitor channels are not capable of being adjusted to the level required to permit operation at very low pcwer levels in a natural conver. tion mode. The licensee committed in his answer (letter dated April 9 1980, paragraph h) to this item of noncompliance that the reactor would not be operated in the natural convection mode unless the flux monitor trip points have been reset to a va!ue of 1.1 kw or less. This item is closed.
g 1.
(Closed) Inspector Followup Item (80-01-9). The inspector reviewed the weekly radionuclide analysis accomplished since the last inspection and
had no further questions. This item is closed.
,
J.
(Closed) Inspector Followup Item (80-01-10). The operating logs were
!
reviewed and the inspector found no evidence of reactor operation without the required instrumentation being operational. This item is closed.
k.
(0 pen) Infraction (80-01-03). There is an ongoing program to develop a
'
quality assurance program for experiments as required by technical
!
specification paragraph 6.3.E.
The inspector reviewed the program ac l
presently developed and the changes proposed by the nuclear Safeguards l
Committee. The inspector had no further comments.
This item remains open.
l 1.
(Closed) Deficiency (78-05-02). The inspector reviewed the shim-safety blade reactivity worth measurements for 1980.
The inspector had no further questions. This item is closed.
m.
(Closed) Inspector Followup Item (78-05-03).
The licensee has
corrected the magnet amplifier connector and has had no subsequent
'
problems in this area. This item is closed.
n.
(Closed) Unresolved (78-02-06).
The i n $.pector verified that the'
l electronic tracking problem with the control room recorder has been
corrected.
The control room recorder is now tracking releases as,,, '.
accurately as the Keitheley micro-micro-ampmeter which is source
checked per requirements. This item is closed.
l t
.. - - - _ -.
.. -.
.- -
.
.-.
,
~.
-
l
_
.
'
.
'
, ;w
..
o.
(Closed) Unrsolved Item (78-02-07).
The inspector verified'Ahat 'a written, approved respiratory protection program has been enablished.
The inspector noted that training has been conducted, retraining has i
l occurred, and physicals have been performed by qualified physicians on members of the staff who may require respiratory protection.
This item is closed.
-
i p.
(Closed) Inspector Followup. Item (78-02-08).
The inspector verified that a personnel dosimeter spiking program has been established. The inspector noted that results of fast neutron spiking resulted in the licensee changing neutron dosimeters last October. Results for the new
,
dosimetery system show improvements in fast neutron response. External-
neutron exposure control is maintained with portable n'eutron survey data and stay time calculations. This item is closed.
,
!
4.
Unresolved Items
No unresolved items were identified during this inspection.
l S.
Facility Tour s
'
The inspector toured the facility with the Reactor Supervisor and observed l
reactor operations.
!
The inspectors observed that a remote meter, located outside the containment l
airlock, which indicates the Area Radiation Monitor reading on the beamport j
floor inside containment was malfunctioning.
Repairs were initiated immediately.
l
[
It das observed that the strip chart recorder for the MAP 1 particulate
stack monitor was inoperable and that a portable recorder had been tem-l porarily installed.
Licensee representatives stated that tentative plans are to replace the failed recorder with a remote recorder readout in the control room. The inspectors stated that since this effluent monitor is a Technical Specification. required instrument, the resolution of this problem should be given priority attention.
No violations were identified in this area.
6.
Annual Report The annual report was reviewed for compliance to paragraph 6.7.a of the Technical Specifications. There were no discrepancies noted. The inspector
'
had no further questions in this area.
7.
Bulletins and Circulars
'
a.
Bulletin 78-07, " Protection Afforded by Air-Line Respirators and m, [
Supplied Air Hoods. Discussions with licensee representatives revealed that protection factors have never been used when respiratory protec-tion has been worn. The inspector verified that the correct protection
..
.
,
w= W iq*e-ge e-re w g e-g v g-eg -ys> e y 7 * y t g ** Wy
"Pt-'~4w-+Nw-NiW th e y
t.-gin--re-+v-yy m-, rgye===
v-erw+g--g-eret-, * -
gy,-grwe MTv w h rqyes g -~ e-eg e-py-+e w +-- W % hww -r 1 w e % -* t w -
g--gg yw=g m w ss
+w
.
F
.o factors are available should credit be taken for respirator use-in th'e
'
future. This item is closed.
b.
Circular 79-15, " Bursting of High Pressure Hose and Malfunction of Relief Valve and "0"-Ring in Certain Self-Contained Breathing Apparatus." The inspector noted that the licensee-does not own the SurvivAir Mark I self-contat.71d breathing apparatus and had no further questions. This item is closed.
.
c.
Bulletin 79-19, " Packaging of Low-Level Radioactive Waste for Transport and Burial."
The inspector reviewed the licensee's response of August 31, 1979, and had no questions or comments on this item.
This item is closed.
'
d.
Circular 80-14, " Radioactive Contamination of Plant Demineralized Water System and Resultant Internal Contamination of Personnel." Discussions with licensee representatives revealed that water is not made up to the reactor coolant system or the fuel pool through temporary fill lines.
The inspector concluded that it appeared personnel could not become internally contaminated in the manner described in the circular. This item is closed.
8.
Surveillance The surve!!1ance program was reviewed for compliance to the schedule requirements of paragraph 1.27 of the Technical Specifications which require that a surveillance be accomplished within plus or minus 25 percent of the required interval. The surveillance records of the monthly emergency core cooling system (ECCS) test were reviewed and it w s found that although the surveillance tests were accomplished, the surveillance frequency exceeded
the Technical Specification requirements on two occasions.
One test
!
scheduled for October 3, 1980, was actually accomplished on October 24, l
1980, and one test scheduled for January 9, 1981, was actually accomplished on January 27, 1981. This is a violation (160/rl-01-01).
Technical Specification 6.4.b.(7) requires that written procedures shall be l
provided and utilized for surveillance and testing requirements. Technical l
Specification 6.4.a requires that all procedures and major changes thereto shall be reviewed and approved by the Nuclear Safeguards Committee (NSC)
prior to being effective.
During a previous inspection, the adequacy of the surveillance procedure for rod drop time measurements was questioned. The rod drop procedure consists primarily of instructions as to how to set up the electronic timers and does not contain a step by step sequence for plant conditions and manipulations.
Surveillance procedures are presently contained on index cards which do not reflect the review and approval of the NSC. The inspector stated that these., s procedures should be more formalized, detailed, and complete to meetthe intent of the Technical Specifications.
Subsequent to the inspection, on September 24, 1980 in a phone conversation between C. Julian and R. Kirk-
_
- -
.
.
.
.
-
_
_ _
_..
__
_ -
,
. _
_ - _ -
, _ -
!
_.
.
a i
'
.n j
land, the licensee agreed to review and revise as necessary each surveil-lance procedure prior to its next use. This matter was left as' unresolved
item 80-03-01 pending further review.
'
During the current inspection the inspector observed that the licensee has a
'
draft revision to the rod drop and the emergency core cooling system (ECCS)
surveillance procedure, but these have not yet been made effective by review
-
'
and approval of the NSC.
Several other Technical Speci,fication required surveillance procedures similarly contained on index cards do not reflect
,
the review and approval of the NSC.
The inspector stated that these two examples, i.e. Rod Drop and ECCS, do not
'
meet the requirements of Technical Specifications 6.4.a and '6.4.b.(7) and
'
that this item is a violation. (160/81-01-02)
9.
Reactor Operator Requalification
,
The inspector examined the records of the Reactor Operator Requalification i
program for 1980 and 1981 to date. For 1981, the written examinations have
been given but not yet graded. The inspector briefly reviewed the exams and found na deficiencies requiring immediate action. The written examinations for 1980 were reviewed and found satisfc. tory. The NRC approved Operator Requalification Program requires that periodically, but no less than annually, the operations experience of licensed operators and senior operators will be reviewed with regard to the number of control manipula-tions they have performed during the period. The review will be to assure t' hat not less than five such manipulations are completed, distributed over
,
each annual requalification period.
,
!
'
Contrary to this requirement, during 1980 two Senior Reactor Operators (SR0s) failed to complete at least 5 control manipulations.
One SR0 performed 3 and one SRO performed no control manipulations.
The program requires that among the requalification records to be completed
will be a summary of control manipulations forlicensees involved in the requalification program. No such summary was completed during 1980 however, one was generated during the inspection period from other reactor operation
,
'
records.
Additionally, the program requires that not less than once each year,~ ihe
<
performance and competency of licensed operators will be observed and evaluated.
The observation will include a discussion of the licensee's actions and responsibilities during simulated emergency conditions. If the i
response of a licensee to an actual emergency condition is observed in i
detail sufficient to allow an evaluation of the licensee's performance, then a summary record will be completed. Additional evaluation under simulated
'
conditions will not be required during that requalification period.
The
'
evaluation of the operator's performance will be included in the file of.D,,
requalification records.
i
_
.,.-m,-.--,,-----,,x
,,,.
.,-..,,y 3-_,m,..-,--,,...-n,,-.,.--%.,,,m.
,.,.,-..---,m,,,.
,.,..,...,,e,,-,,,-%.,v.,--,m
,,,~.r.,,,,.,,n,y,,w,,.,.,.-,,.--w
.
<
..
.
.
i
- .
.
.
-
Contrary to this requirement, for 1980 records of performance observation were not completed for 4 of the 6 persons currently licensed to operate the
!
reactor.
'
Failure to meet these requirements of the Operator Requalification Program s
for the calendar year 1980 is a violation of 10 CFR 50.54 (1-1) which requires the licensee to maintain the requalification program in effect.
l (160/81-01-03)
.
,
)
i
'
.
I
!
l
!
l
,
'
r P
e 6i i
i
.
-1 s
s I
h
,
..
.
. -.. -,... -. -. - -
....
.--. -._.. - -
..-. - -.-
- - -..-.
._-,
-