IR 05000187/1979002
| ML19210E573 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000187 |
| Issue date: | 10/29/1979 |
| From: | Carlson J, Morrill P, Sternberg D NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19210E571 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-187-79-02, 50-187-79-2, NUDOCS 7912050316 | |
| Download: ML19210E573 (3) | |
Text
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
-
OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
REGION V
Report No.
50-187/79-02 Docket No.
50-187 License No.
R-90 Safeguards Group Licensee:
Northrop Corporation - Research and Technolorv Center One Research Park Palos Verdes Peninsula, California 90274 Facil.ity Name:
Northrop NOR Reactor (TRICA MARK F)
Inspection at:
Hawthorne, California
.
Iispection condacted:
October 16-18 1970 2h.
/
Cf W Insoector n
Date' Signe'd J
D. Carlson, React 070%~X)rInspector
/049/7'l P. J) Morrill, Reactor Inspector Date Signed D te SL,ned bh Approved By:
'
)
IDate Signed D. M. Sternberg, Chief,(Redctor Projects Section 1, Reactor Operations and Nuclear Support Branch Surrma ry :
Inspection on October 16-18, 1979 (Report No. 50-187/79-02)
Areas Inspected:
Operating and maintenance procedures; organization, logs, and records; review and audit; requalification pragram; surveil-lance; and experiements.
The inspection involved 30 inspector-hours onsite by two NRC inspectors.
Results: No items of noncomplianca or deviations were identified.
?502 182 RV F,rrr 719 (7)
'29120N"3
.
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted
- Dr. Walter Crandall, Chairman, Corporate Radiation Safety Committee
- J. G. Adams, Manager, Administrative' Services G. B. Cozens, Reactor Supervisor F. Blair, Reactor Operator
- J. Wood, Health Physics / Reactor Technician
- Denotes those present at the exit interview.
.
2.
Organization, Logs, and Records The facility organization of the TRIGA Mark F reactor was compared with Technical Specifications requirements.
Proper staffing during reactor operation was by observation and from operating records.
(The reactor is operated on Mondays and Tuesdays only. ) The following operating records were reviewed:
Console Log, September 11, 1978 - October 16, 1979 Maintenance Logs, October,1978 - September,1979 Startup & Shutdown sheets, October,1978 - October,1979 No changes in organization, operation or approval of new experiments has occerred since the last inspect on.
No deviations or items of noncompliance were identified.
3.
Review and Audit The inspectors examined the minutes of the Corporate Radiation Committee (CRC) and Reactor Safeguards Subcommittee (RSS) meetings conducted since the previous inspection. The review included consideration of meeting frequency, quorum, membership, and contents of the minutes.
No facility changes or new experiments had been reviewed by the CRC or RSS during 1978 or 1979.
No deviations or items of noncompliance were identified.
4.
Surveillance The inspector reviewed surveillance procedures and records of completed surveillance to verify adequacy and ccnformance to the Technical Specifi-cations.
The Technical Specifications related parameters examined included:
pulse reac tivity, minimum reactor safety rod drop times, core temperature, bulk water temperature, exit water temperature, pulse rod drop time; excess react.ivity, shutdown margin, and power level calibration.
1502 183
.
- 2 --
.
The inspector also followed up corrective action to an item of noncompliance regarding maintenance of the transient (pulse) rod drive cylinder. The inspector verified the required maintenance interval was being met.
During the review, the inspector questioned the licensee on the current method used to monitor pool conductivity. The licensee uses continuous monitoring by conductivity cells on the inlet and outlet to the pool de-mineralizer. The current cells had been installed for approximately fifteen years with no maintenance or calibration performed since installation.
(It is noted that the technical specifications do not require periodic mainten-Ince or calibration on this system.) To ensure toe conductivity cells were cading accurately, the licensee agreed to periodically sample the pool pater and compare the conductivity of the sample with the readings from the installed cells.
Subsequently, the licensee reported the initial con-ductivity measurements compared within the accuracy of the instrumentation.
fio caviations or items of noncompliance were identified.
5.
RequalificaHon Training Discussions were held with licensed senior reactor operators.
Records of requalification training, including annual examinations, were examined to verify the program was being implemented in accordance with the program approved by the Coamission.
The inspector also followed up corrective actions (described in the licensee's letter dated flovember 14,1978) to two items of ncncortpliance.
The inspector verified that:
a.
The per. odic and systematic performance evaluations of licensed individuals by supervisory personnel had been performed and documented, b.
The abnormal / emergency procedure review with licensed individuals had been documented.
These items are considered closed.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
6.
Procedures The inspector reviewed the " Operating Instructions and Procedures for the Northrop Reactor, April,1971 - revised July,1973" for scopa, technical adequacy, and conformance to the Technical Specifications.
The inspector also reviewed the licensee's administrative records to verify that the procedures in use were properly approved and were the correct revisions.
No procedure changes had been issued since the previous inspection.
f;o deviations or items of noncompliance were identified.
1502 184
.
-3-
7.
Experiments The licensee's experiment program since the beginning of 1979 was examined.
Approximately 175 experiments had been authorized during this year, all involving irradiation of solid state devices under Routine Use (RU) Permit No.15 (authorizes irradiation of common non-fissionable non-explosive mate-rial).
The review included discussion with facility representatives of experiment approval, reactivity effects, potential hazards, and radiolog-ical concerns.
No new or unusual experiments were conducted.
No deviations or items of nonccmpliance were identified.
8.
Independent Inspection Effort
.
The inspectors toured the facility in company with licensee representatives.
The reactor pool, core and nuclear instrument arrangement, fuel storage racks, the fuel status board, and general equipment conditions were examined.
No deviations or items of noncompliance were identified.
9.
Exit Interview An exit interview was conducted with licensee representatives (denoted in Paragraph 1) at the conclusion of the inspection. The inspectors summarized the scope and findings of the inspection.
1502 185