IR 05000184/1978005

IE Inspec Rept 50-184/78-05 on 780822-24 During Which 1 Item of Noncompliance Was Noted:Using Outdated Surveillance Test Procedures

ML20148R550
Person / Time
Site:	National Bureau of Standards Reactor
Issue date:	09/12/1978
From:	Architzel R, Mccabe E NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:
Shared Package
ML20148R539	List: IR 05000184/1978005
References
50-184-78-05, 50-184-78-5, NUDOCS 7811300363
Download: ML20148R550 (6)

Text

. . . ._ . _ _ _ ._.. __

., j-U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY: COMMISSION-1 OrrICe Or INSeeCTION AND eNr0RCeMcNT Region I Report N Docket N License N TR-5- Priority --

Category E

,

Licensee: U. S. Department of Commerce National Bureau of Standards

~

Washington, D. racility Name: NBS Reactor Insp'ection at: Gaithersburg, Maryland Inspection conducted: 'A 22-24, 1978

'

J [ nugustut Inspectors:

.

/N- / .(/ / (U; k1 9 /p R.E7Architzel,Reactorinspector date' signed date signed date signed Approved by: O.@. k h 'l qlMyp E. C. McCabe, Chief, Reactor Projects date signed Section No. 2, R0&NS Branch Inspection Summary:

Inspection on August 22-24, 1978 (Report No. 50-184/78-05) l Areas Inspected: Routine, unannounced inspection of facility procedures I and surveillance testing. Licensee action on previous inspection findings was reviewed and a facility tour was conducted. The inspection involved 17 hours1.967593e-4 days <br />0.00472 hours <br />2.810847e-5 weeks <br />6.4685e-6 months <br /> on site by one regionally based NRC inspecto Results: Of the two areas. inspected, one item of noncompliance was identified (deficiency-usingoutdatedsurveillancetestprocedures, paragraph.4.b).

,

~7811300363 Region ILrorm 12 (Rev. Apri1177).. ,

.

- - - _ - - - - - - - - - - __

,

-

>

o DETAILS Persons Contacted

• Dr. R. Carter, Chief, Reactor Radiation Division

• Mr. T. Raby, Chief, Reactor Operations Section Mr. J. Ring, Shift Supervisor

'

• denotes presence at exit intervie Other licensee employees, including licensed operators and health physicists, were also interviewe . Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings (Closed) Unresolved Item (184/78-04-02): Fuel Storage. The inspector reviewed the analysis demonstrating conservatism of the licensee's fuel storage array which was not available during a previous inspectio No unacceptable conditions were identifie (0 pen) Follow Item (184/78-04-06): Flanmable Floor Sealant Used in Control Room Electrical Penetrations. The licensee has removed flammable sealant from two penetrations containing conduit for l

cable protection. The' licensee has undergone a review of suitable l sealants and plans to install one of these in the subject penetrations.

l In addition the licensee plans to reseal the penetrations (cable only no conduit) behind the control console which have been breached to pass. new cables. These actions will be reexamined during a subsequent inspectio , Facility Procedures A review of Operating and Administrative procedures was conducted to verify the following: ,

-- The responsibilities of operators regarding adherence to procedures has been established in writin l

-- The method of changi_ng' procedures has been establishe The level of review and approval of procedure changes is establishe The inspector questioned the licensee concerning the control of facility procedure The licensee stated that the control room copy of a procedure was the controlled copy. All procedure changes are routed to personnel in the Reactor Operations )

Branch. They acknowledge this review by signing the routing

'

sheet. In addition, Control Room procedures are stamped

" Official Copy".

i

___ .__ _-

- _

. ..

3 The following control room procedures were reviewed to vorify that the latest revision was on file and approved, and to determine on a sampling basis conformance to FSAR system description .I. 1.1; Reactor Startup, April 26, 1978

-- 0.I.1.2; Reactor Normal Operation, March 19, 1976 ,

-- 0.I. 1.3; Reactor Shutdowns, March 19, 1976

--

0.I. 5.1; Emergency Power Testing, December 10, 1975

---

0.I. 5.3; Operation of the Radiation Monitoring System, i November 4, 1968 '

-- E.I. 2.2.8; Regulating Rod Failure, November 15, 1967

--

E. I. 2.2.10; Stuck Rabbit in the Pneumatic System, November 15, 1967 '

--

A.P. 1.16; Process Room Door Open, August 5, 1976

--

A.P. 2.3; Sump Pit No. 4 High Level, August 5,1976 During this review the inspector noted numerous pen and ink changes to procedures made by the Deputy Chief, Reactor Opera-tions Section. The inspector questioned the licensee concerning Hazards Evaluation Committee (HEC) review of the subject changes. The licensee stated that this had last been accomplished approximately in 1976. The inspector stated that this area will be reviewed during a future inspection. (184/78-05-01). Surveillance Testing Procedure Review The insepctor reviewed, on a sampling basis, the following surveillance test procedures and compared them with Technical Specification requirements and FSAR system descriptions. The inspector concluded that the procedures would adequately perform the required test and that the procedures reflected the as built system.

! --

0.I. 7.4a; Reactivity Worth of Each Shim Arm and Regula-I tory Rod, April 20, 1972

--

0.I. 7.5a; Exercising of all Control Valves in the Emergency Cooling System, May 26, 1977 l

+

.

l l

l

--

0.I. 7.5c; Exercising of the Light Water Injection I Valves, December 10, 1975 j

-- 0.I. 7.4c; Scram Time of Each Shim Arm's First 5 Drop, -

December 10, 1975

'

No unacceptable conditions were identifie !

l Records ,

!

The following surveillance test records were reviewed to l verify that the testing was accomplished within the frequency

'

established by the Technical Specifications and that the results were reviewe Surveillance Frequency Performed l Measure Scram 5. Quarterly 5/24/78; 2/14/78; Times 11/24/77; 8/12/77 Test Primary Relief 5. Annually 7/14/78; 7/6/77 Valve Integrated Leakage 5.1. c Annually 7/11/78; 7/17/77 Test of the Confinement Building'

Measure Shim 5. 4. a Annually 9/14/77 l Arms and Regulating I Rod Worths '

Operability of 5. Monthly 7/14/78; 6/14/78; i N-16 Monitor 5/15/78 l Sample Secondary 5. Monthly, Month of August 1978 Cooling System Daily if N-16 approximately once per day Monitor Inoperable Source Test ARMS 5. Monthly 6/14/78; 7/14/78 The inspector noted that outdated procedures were utilized to perform the following surveillance l

,

. .

Effective Date of Revision Revision Procedure Date Used (on Date)

0.I. 7.lc; Operation of 10/22/76 4/20/72 (7/17/77)

of Reactor Building Leak Rate Test System 0.I. 7.2b; Test Primary 10/20/76 12/10/75 (7/14/78)

Relief 0.I. 7.6a; Operability 4/4/77 12/10/75 (6/14/78, of N-16 Monitor 7/14/78)

0.I. 7.8a; Operability 6/19/78 4/4/77 (7/14/78)

Check and Calibration of the Area Monitors The inspector noted that in all cases the changes to the procedure were minor and the test results acceptable. The licensee determined the cause of using out of date procedures and checklists to be the stockpiling of forms in the control room. Corrective action was taken by removing the outdated forms. Failure to use the approved revision of surveillance test procedures is an item of noncompliance. (184/78-05-02). Technical Specification Requirements The inspector verified that the following Technical Specification requirements which are not covered by surveillance tests were satisfied:

--

T.S. 3.2.e; D2 Concentration Less than 4% by Volume in the Helium Sweep System:

October 7, 1976 - .4%

September 10, 1976 -

.4%

January ,1970 - .82%

(Laboratory Sample Results)

-- T.S. 3.4.b; Reactivity Insertion Rate Less than 7.0 X 10-4 ap/sec. Inspector calculation using most recent regulating rod worth and speed: 4.46 X 10-4 ap/se No unacceptable conditions were identified.

I

}- ,

., .

!

l 6. IE Circular 77-14 The inspector reviewed IE Circular 77-14, Separation of Contaminated Water Systems from Noncontaminated Plant Systems, with the license This review demonstrated that the licensee had received the subject circular and performed a review of applicabilit No unacceptable conditions were identifie . Facility Tour A facility tour was conducted in the company of a licensee represen-ta tive. The tour included all levels of the confinement building (except the process room), the secondary building, machine shops, staging areas, and the cooling tower. Areas examined included radiation protection, posting, equipment status, safety hazards, and cleanlines No unacceptable conditions were identifie . Exit Interview -

At the end of the inspection the inspector held a meeting (see paragraph 1 for attendees) to discuss the inspection scope and findings. The item of noncompliance was identifie :