IR 05000182/1981002
| ML19347E122 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Purdue University |
| Issue date: | 03/13/1981 |
| From: | Boyd D, Ridgway K NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19347E117 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-182-81-02, 50-182-81-2, NUDOCS 8104240056 | |
| Download: ML19347E122 (5) | |
Text
.
c
.
.
O (_/
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
REGION III
Report No. 50-182/81-02 Docket No. 50-182 License No. R-87 Licensee: Purdue University West Lafayette, IN 47907 Inspection Conducted: February 17-19, 1981
//f./h.kWt1-
Inspector:
K. R. Ridgway)
Y/3/r/
Approved By:
D.
B ief M
Reactor Projects Section IA Inspection Summary Inspection on February 17-19, 1981 (Report No. 50-182/81-02)
Areas Inspected: Routine unannounced inspection of records, logs and organ-ization; review and audit functions; requalification training; procedures; surveillance and maintenance; fuel handling; experiments; and followup action relative to IE Circulars. This inspection involved a total of 18 inspector-hours onsite by one NRC inspector including 0 ir.spector-hours onsite'during offshifts.
Results: Of the seven areas inspected, no items of noncompliance were identi-fied in six areas; two apparent items of noncompliance were identified in one area, (failure to hold committee meetings and audits at required frequencies).
g) 04 24eMH
/
e s
.
.
s DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted
- Dr. F. M. Clikeman, Director, Nuclear Engineering Laboratory
- E. R. Stansberry, Reactor Supervisor E. Merrit, Technician
- Denotes those present at the exit interview.
2.
Organization, Logs and Records The facility organization was reviewed and verified to be consistent with the Technical Specifications and/or Hazards Summary Report.
The minimum staffing requirements were verified to be present during reactor operation, and fuel handling or refueling operations.
The reactor logs and records were reviewed to verify that:
a.
Required entries were made.
b.
Significant problems or incidents were documented.
c.
The facility was being maintained properly.
d.
Records were available for inspection.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
3.
Reviews and Audits i
The licensee's review and audit program records were examined by the inspector to verify that:
a.
Reviews of facility changes, operating and maintenance procedures, 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 committee and/or subcommittees were composed of qualified members and that quorum requirements'and frequency of meetings had been met.
Required safety audits had been conducted in accordance with c.
Technical Specification requirements and that any identified problems were resolved.
-2-
n i
.-
.
.
i During the review of the meeting minutes of the Committee on Reactor
,
Operations (CORO) and its subcommittee, it was noted that no committee or subcommittee meetings were held between May 20, 1979 and October 17, 1979. This is in noncompliance with Technical Specifications (T.S.)
6.2.3 "The CORO or a subcommittee thereof shall meet at least once per calendar quarter." The review of meeting records also revealed that several matters of committee-subcommittee administration was not clearly defined in the T.S. or procedures. Such items as, who are the committee members?, how were they appointed?, and for how long? The same questions applied to the subcommittee on Reactor Operations. The licensee stated they would consider writing a committee charter to better define the committee-subcommittee administrations.
License Amendment No. 3 dated November 28, 1978, incorporated new Technical Specifications (T.S.) which requires an annual audit of facility activities under the cognizance of the COR0. The licensee had audited.the reactor activities in October,1978, just prior to the new T.S. requirements. However, the activities were not audited again until May, 1980. This is considered to be a noncompliance item.
No other items of noncompliance were identified.
4.
Requalification Training The inspector reviewed procedures, logs and training records; and interviewed personnel to verify that the requalification training program was being carried out in conformance with the facility's approved plan and NRC regulations. Two requalification examinations had been conducted in late 1980.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
5.
Procedures The inspector reviewed the licensee's procedures to determine if procedures were issued, reviewed, changed or updated, and approved in accordance with Technical Specifications and HSR requirements.
This review also verified:
a.
That procedure content was adequate to safely operate, refuel and maintain the facility.
b.
That responsibilities were clearly defined.
c.
That required checklists and forms were used.
The inspector determined that the required procedures were available and the contents of the procedures were adequate.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
I i-3-l
,
A..
_
. -
O
.
.
}
'
6.
' Su rveillance The inspector reviewed procedures, surveillance test schedules and test records and discussed the surveillance program with responsible personnel to verify:
a.
That when necessary, procedures were available and adequate to perform the tests.
b.
That tests were completed within the required time schedule.
c.
Test records were available.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
7.
Experiments The inspector verified by reviewing experiment records and other reactor logs that:
a.
Experiments were conducted using approved procedures and under approved reactor conditions.
b.
New experiments or changes in experiments were properly reviewed and approved.
c.
The expetiments did not involve an unreviewed safety question, i.e., 10 CFR 50.59.
d.
Experiments involving potential hazards or reactivity change were identified in procedures.
'
e.
Reactivity limits were not or could not have been exceeded during the experiment.
The inspector noted that the procedure developed for determining the maximum quantity of material that could be inserted for irradiation with only one encapsulation had not been incorporated into the reactor operations procedures. The licensee stated they would consider formal-izing this procedure.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
8.
Fuel Handling The facility fuel handling program was reviewed by the inspector.
The review iccluded the verification of approved procedures for fuel handling and the technical adequacy of them in the areas of radiation protection, criticality safety, Technical Specification and security plan requirements. The inspector determined by records review and-4-
-- --
--
-
-
-
.
.
-
m-
.
t
.
.
'
discussions with personnel that fuel ~ handling operations and startup tests were carried out in conformance to the licensee's procedures.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
9.
IE Circular Followup For the IE Circulars listed below, the inspector verified that the Circular was received by the licensee management, that a review for applicability was performed, and that if the circular was applicable to the facility, appropriate corrective actions were taken or were scheduled to be taken.
a.
IEC 79-08,-Attempted Extortion - Low Enriched Uranium.
b.
IEC 80-02, Nuclear Power Plant Staff Work Hours.
c.
IEC 80-14, Radioactive Contamination of Plant Demineralized Water System and Resultant Internal Contamination of Personnel.
10.
Review of Periodic and Special Reports The inspector reviewed the following reports for timeliness of submittal and adequacy of information submitted:
a.
Report on Reactor Operations, dated March, 1979.
b.
Report on Reactor Operations, dated March, 1980.
11.
Exit Interview The inspector met with licensee representatives (denoted in Paragraph 1)
at the conclusion of the inspection on February 19, 1931, and summarized the scope and findings of the inspection.
l-5-J