IR 05000184/1993001
| ML20046B027 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | National Bureau of Standards Reactor |
| Issue date: | 07/19/1993 |
| From: | Bores R, Dragoun T NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20046B024 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-184-93-01, 50-184-93-1, NUDOCS 9308030020 | |
| Download: ML20046B027 (5) | |
Text
.
.
.-
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i
REGION I
Report No..
50-184/93-01 i
-
Docket No.-
50-184 License No.
TR-5
.
I Licensee:
U. S. Denanment of Commerce NationalInstitute of Standards and Technology Gaithersburg. Maryland 20899 Facility Name:
National Bureau of Standards Reactor (NBSR)
'
Inspection At:
Gaithersburg. Maryland Inspection Conducted:
June 30-July 2.1993 i
i'
,/
c
%
/f/9FJ Inspector:
Thomas Draggroject Scientist, Effluents ((rfe
'
Radiation Protection Section (ERPS), Facilities Radiological Safety and Safeguards Branch (FRSSB)
M 07//P//d Approved By:_
c f{oben J. Bopif, Chief, ERPS, FRSSB, date Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards Areas Reviewed: Maintenance and repair of reactor systems, recordkeeping, fuel :novement, sun'eillances, opemtor requalification training, and control of experiments.
.
Results: No safety concerns or violations of NRC requirements were observed. The preventive maintenance program was found to be notewodhy.
9308030020 930721 PDR ADOCK 05000184 G
_
.
,
t
'
Details 1.0 Individuals Contacted 1.1 Licensee Personnel D. Brady, Supervisor, Test and Calibration
'
H. Prask, Vice Chairman, Safety Evaluation Committee
- J. Rowe, Chief, Reactor Radiation Division
'
- J. Torrence, Deputy Chief, Reactor Operations J. Ring, Shift Supervisor
.
1.2 NRC Personnel
- S. Shankman, Deputy Director, Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards, Region I
- Attended the Exit Interview on July 2,1993. Other personnel were contacted or interviewed during the inspection.
,
2.0 Maintenance Technical Specification (TS) 7.9 requires the licensee to maintain records of all principal maintenance activities. This information is summarized and incorporated into the annual report submitted to the NRC in accordance with TS 7.8. The inspector reviewed the process by which equipment malfunctions were identified, tracked and resolved. The inspector reviewed the maintenance logs and interviewed the Senior Reactor Operator (SRO) in charge of maintenance. Although the reactor was shut down, there was no maintenance in progress. Maintenance is normally done during the reactor refueling shutdowns that occur about every 45 days. The mechanical and electrical work is performed by one of the SROs who is assigned responsibility for the system except when the repair becomes complex. Licensee management noted that this allows the operators to become intimately familiar with the equipment and all have some ability due to prior experience in the nuclear navy. Operators were in agreement with this approach.
Maintenance activities appeared to be properly recorded. In January 1992, the SRO in charge revised the records so that entries were kept for each system rather than chronologically. This allowed trending of equipment performance. There is also a
,
preventative maintenance program consisting of weekly, monthly and annual maintenance specified by checklists for trouble-prone equipment. The schedule was developed based on recommendations by the SROs and is periodically chanted to add or. delete components. There is also a grease-board posted in the control room that lists current problems with non-safety related equipment. These are excellent initiatives by the licensee.
.
-
-
.-
.
.
s
The inspector noted that there was no requirement to conduct preoperational checks after repairs. The Deputy Chief of Operations stated that operation of all safety equipment is checked as part of the reactor stanup procedure.
Within the scope of this review, no safety concerns were identified. The licensee's equipment maintenance program was determined to be excellent.
3.0 Recordkeepine
~
The inspector reviewed the licensee's recordt eping with respect to the requirements specified in TS 7.9 and licensee Procedure A.R.4.0, " Logs, Records and Instruction Books", that was issued on 01/31/85 following the license renewal in May 1984. The records reviewed included the reactor console log, shift supervisor's log book, reactor control room log sheets, and the reactor area inspection sheets. No deficiencies were noted.
Reactor operators are required to keep hourly and half-hourly logs of certain system parameters on preprinted forms.
These are reviewed by the shift supervisor for anomalies. Once each shift an operator tours the equipment areas in the reactor building and records observations on an inspection sheet. These are good practices.
The inspector noted that Procedure A.R.4.0 does not list the logging of reportable occurrences although they are being recorded as required by. the TS.
Licensee management stated that a revision to the procedure will be considered.
4.0 Fuel Movement Reactor refueling consists of removing three fuel elements, repositioning the remaining i
fuel, and adding three new elements at about 45-day intervals. The fuel is moved using -
hand-operated transfer arms built into the reactor head and long-reach grappling tools inserted through openings in the head.
The work is accomplished by two shift supervisors, one positioned on the operating deck above the reactor and the other in the spent fuel pool area beneath the reactor with constant communications between them.
The current refueling had been delayed due to equipment repairs.
The inspector accompanied the shift supervisor assigned to the spent fuel pool on a dry run to verify conformance with the requirements specified in TS 3.7 and licensee's Operating Instruction #6.1, " Fueling and. Refueling Procedures", and #6.2, " Operation of the Fuel Transfer System".
Spent fuel is removed from the core via a transfer chute that extends from the interior of the reactor tank through the Equipment Room to the spent fuel pool. The fuel is enclosed and shielded at all times so that radiation levels in occupied spaces do not increase during the transfer. New fuel is inspected and loaded through openings in the i
_
_
_ _ _ _ _ _ -
.
.
.
i reactor head. Spent fuel is stored under water in racks that are designed to maintain k-effective less than 0.9.
The transfer chute has several remotely operated valves that allow for lowering the
,
reactor coolant level and isolating the reactor from the spent fuel pool. All interlocks
!
and safety features were appropriate, with the system designed for two-valve isolation.
The inspector noted that the transfer system control panel was de-energized such that the
status of the valves could not be determined. The shift supervisor stated that a new panel.
I had been designed and ordered, and that it will have a continuous display of valve positions. Within the scope of this review, no safety concerns were identified.
5.0 Surveillances The inspector reviewed the records and p;ocedures related to the performance of surveillances required by TS 5.5, 5.6, 5.7, and 5.8.
Surveillances that require calibration are done by the Electronics and Instrumentation (E&I) group while the remainder are completed by reactor operators. A recent effort to improve coordination between these two groups involved introduction of uniform nomenclature when referring to equipment. Within the scope of this review, all surveillances were completed as required.
Within the past year, the supervisor and technician in the E&I group were replaced. The current supervisor indicated plans to continue with the highly successful system for the cocduct and recording of surveillances instituted by his predecessor.
Some minor changes to surveillance procedures are expected since the technician with 30-years'
experience died suddenly before his replacement was trained. Both new personnel appeared to be qualified for their positions.
The inspector reviewed in detail the performance of TS 5.8(4) which requires a discharge test of the emergency battery every five years. The discharge electrical current used for j
the test was a reasonable approximation of the emergency equipment load. The voltage
'
of each cell in the battery was measured during the test and a cut-off specified that was appropriate to the type of battery. The battery demonstrated a capacity to supply emergency loads for in excess of four hours, as specified in TS 3.10, " Emergency Power Systems". Within the scope of this review, no deficiencies were observed.
6.0 Ooerator Reaualification Trainine In 1992 the NRC conducted selected operator requalification examinations.
No weaknesses were noted. The inspector reviewed the conduct of requalification training.
Technical lectures were given about monthly. Subjects were appropriate and attendance was good. However, the inspector noted that there were no separate records (i.e., by individual operator) of console manipulations. Once each year the Deputy Chief of
~.
_-
.-
l ~~
..
l
l Operations sends a checklist to each operator who records the date that the required
,
I manipulation was completed as recorded in the console logbook.
The inspector commented that with 17 licensed operators and extended periods of steady-state operation, some operators may not get the opportunity to perform the required
'
manipulations. The licensee stated that this problem has not occurred and that the reactor
.
schedule could be changed to allow for make-up sessions.
,
1 7.0 Control of Experiments TS 4.0 gives the safety parameters for experiments and TS 7.2 requires the Safety Evaluation Committee (SEC) to review proposed experiments. The inspector reviewed SEC oversight of experiments through discussions with the Chief, Reactor Radiation Division (CRRD), the Vice Chairman of the SEC, and review of selected documents.
A distinction is made between the experiment and any permanent changes that must be made to the reactor facilities. Each is reviewed separately. For the experiment, a detailed description in a standardized format called " Experimental Proposal" is submitted to the SEC. The SEC may reject the proposal outright or send it to the CRRD with a recommendation for approval.
The CRRD has sole approval authority for new experiments. Although the process is formalized, it appears that extensive peer reviews and discussions are held. Within the scope of this review, the inspector determined that the licensee's control of experiments was good.
8.0 Exit Interview The inspector met with the licensee representatives indicated in Section 1.0 on July 2, 1993 and summarized the scope and findings of this inspection. The licensee had no substantial comments regarding the inspection findings.
l l
,
,