IR 05000187/1980002
| ML20003B970 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000187 |
| Issue date: | 12/24/1980 |
| From: | Carlson J, Morrill P, Sternberg D NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20003B962 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-187-80-02, 50-187-80-2, NUDOCS 8102260301 | |
| Download: ML20003B970 (4) | |
Text
i
..
.
U. S..!UCLEAR REGULATORY C0!iMISSIO:1
'
JFFICE OF I:lSPECT10!! AilD E:lFORCE!!EilT REGIO,i V 50-187/80-02 RW h
.
Docket ilo.
License do.
~
'
Safeguards Group il rthrop Corocration - Research and Technology Center W ensee,
.
One Research Park
'
Palos Verdes Peninsula, California 90274 u.
l Facility flame:
florthrop NOR Reactor (TRIGA MARK F)
Inspection at:
llawthorne, California November 24-26, 1980 Inspection conducted:
j_
' Inspector b
[
_
e
!
f'/
)
,
P. J. Morrill, Reactor gnspector date digrieo
&. -)l'/L e-m m
,,h
/.1l.~ '/k'{,
'
r
_
Dafe Signed Jn D. Carlson,. Reactor L6spector
'
')
I l-
/
Approved b/:
I v
k.M'N M M k.2d.
,
- _
D. fl. Sternberg, Chief, Reactor Projects Section 1,
/
Data Signed
Reactor Operations and Jiucl. ear _SuppgrLBranch
,
l
. Summary:
-
!
i-InsJection on November 24-26,1980 (Recort flo. 50-187MO-0'2)
--
I Areas Inspected:
Operating and maintenance procedures, organization, logs,-and records; review-and audit; requalification program; surveil-
- lance; and experiments. The irspection involved 30 inspector-hours onsite by two flRC-inspectors, r-Results:
Of the six areas inspected, no deviations.or items of noncomoliance l
.were found in five areas. One apparent item of noncompliance was identified Lin the remaining area- (periodic licensed operator evaluations, paragraph 5).
'
,
810226030/,
.
..
,
'
F f
-
_ ',,
,Y
_
,_
,._"____'_____._.__._u-
'
'%
'
M e
'a
,.
D j
.,,,
.
,
-,+
_
._
t
+
-
'_
_ _ - _ _ - - _ _ _ _ - - - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _. - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _
_ _-_
-
__
__
-.
.
,
,.
. - -
,
t
.
DETAILS
'
1.
Persons Contacted
- 0r. W. Crandall, Chairnan, Corporate Radiation Safety Committee
- Mr. D. Avant, Manager, Administrative Services
,
'
- Mr. G. Cozens, Reactor Supervisor Mr. F. Blair, Reactor Operator
,
- r. J. Wood, Health Physics / Reactor Technician
'
- Denotes those present at *ke exit interview.
j 2.
Oroanization, Logs, and Records The facility organization of the TRIGA Mark F reactor was comoared l
with Technical Specifications requirements.
One change in organization has taken olace during the cast year.
Mr. D. Avant has replaced l
'
Ms. J. Adams as Manager, Administrative Services.
,
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, October 1979 - November 1980 l
l Maintenance Logs, October,1979 - November 1980 Startup & Shutdown sheets, January - November 1980
!
No changes in operation or approval of new experiments had occurred since the last inspection.
j During the examination of records the inspector made the following observations:
.. _ _,
_.. _,.
The February 1930 monthly checklist was missing.
.
The replacement of the pool. cooling pump was not recorded in
.
the naintenance or operations logs.
J The monthly checklist for October 1980 (rod drop times not
.
recorded) and June 1980 (adjust gamma chamber,, CIC-1, and log
,
1 channel) were. incomplete.
i
,
Based on discussions with licensee representatives it appears that some of the monthly checks were not completed.
The inspector stated that it appeared that the licensee's records. system and adherence-to procedure was deteriorating and that although there
,
were no items of noncompliance, the licensee was not following the
'
existing facility procedures. ; Licensee representatives stated that the monthly checks were not completed. due to temporary assignments of key ~ personnel to other tasks and -that. there had been little secretarial help available to file. records during the last year.
,
4y
,e J\\\\Adbn m
,
.
- +w e.
,
.
.
.a m w~,
m: :n,
~n
-,n
.
,
, - m.
.
. w..
--
.,. ~..
.. -.. -
-
,
. w:n....
-
FWam ydW M6hW8.D$t W %q *M; yg M'WMug e N %YMmpt14aq m W.WM -
-
w
.gs-oh 4
er'T-~
' -' W-W- % 'r k h9 ad-e s MS.4M % y -
'is."L-ent. % 13.% -M4
.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ ___ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _________. _ - - _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _._ ___ - _ _ _ - _
__
.
.
--.
..
,
'
,
-
.
!
.
l-2-
l The insocctor observed that the licensee had obtained a portable r
conductivity cell to allow comparison with the installed pool conductivity cells.
The inspector observed that the portable cell indicated 1.2 umno/cm, which appears satisfactory.
This item was
'
discussed in the previous operat.ons inspection (Report No. 50-
- 187/79-02) and is now considered closed.
No deviations or items of noncompliance were identified.
!'
3.
Review and Audit t
!
The insoectors examined the minutes of the Corporate Radiation
,
j Committee (CRC) and Reactor Safeguards Subcommittee (RSS) meetings
!
'
- conducted since the previous inspection.
The review included
!
consideration of meeting freouency, quorum, membership, and contents s
of the minutes. No facility changes or new experiments had been t
reviewed by the CRC or RSS during 1980.
.
No deviations or items of noncompliance were identifi d,
'
e i
A.
Surveillance The inspector reviewed surveillance orocedures and records of
- -
.
completed surveillance to verify adequacy and conformance to the
!
Technical Specifications. The Technical Specifications related parameters examined included: minimum reactor Safety rod drop tines, pulse rod drop times, excess reactivityr pool conductivity,
lur interlock operability, fuel. element inspeevons, and power
level calibration.
,
S.
Reouali fication Training - -,~,---
- - ~
-
,
' Discussions were held with licensed senior reactor operators.
.
Records of requalification training,. including annual examinations,
,
l
~
were examined to verify the program was being implemented in accordance
- i i
with the program approved by the Commission. One-item'of noncompliance
was identified during the inspection of the Operator Requalification
,
Trainin~g Program:
'
The periodic and systematic performance evaluations'of licenss1 individuals by supervisory personnel-had not been performed-and documentad.
~
The~ licensee was advisedIof the noncompliance item during.the exit'
'
,
.
interview.
The licensee acknowledged -the noncompliance item and
{'
. stated that-. improved coordination of the program ~would be provided.
i
'
-
!
s
'
n g
,
m
m g
'#
ve.n&. o&sc-_--f:-j: N w:t ' ?;d;O.._- &. q: w - O r:; % M W b ; >
.: -.
~ ~ &R%
g i.sm
^
v
,
,
u...
~
_
m
..
.
- - - ~,.
~. -..
u J,
,,,, -
.
-m3 -* aa m.1
,oews,
.L em.un~ r-== m%.M.eu +y n '.usene*~-*
^
-me:m*'***'**.-
%
e,
,.n ;<
-,
g-y v
.
re i,
,,.vw
-..&'-----rA.
,
,.------=w
.-+- - + - - - - - - ~~+ -
I
.
....
'
.
.
-3-6.
Procc * res The inspector reviewed the " Operating Instructions and Procedures for the Northrop Reactor, April 1971 - revised July 1973" for scope, technical adequacy, and conformance to the Technical Specifi-cations.
No procedure channes had been issued since the previous insoection.
No deviations or items of noncomoliance were identified.
7.
Experinents The licensee's experiment program since October 1979 was examined.
Aporoxinately 150 exoeriments had been authorized during this year, almost all involvina irradiation of solid state devices under Routine Use (RU) Permit No.15 (authorizes irradiation of common non-fissionable non-exolosive material). The review included discussion with facility representatives of experiment approval, reactivity effects, potential hazards, and radiological concerns.
No new or unusual experiments were conducted.
No deviations or items of noncompliance were identified.
8.
Indeoendent inspection Effort The inspectors toured tne 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.
The insoector also discussea IE Circulars 60-02 and 80-14 with -
licensee representatives. The inspector determined that the licensee had received and reviewed the circulars and taken appropriate action.
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 insoector summarized the scope and findings of the inspection. The licensee acknowledged the item of noncompliance (paragraph 5).
,
,~
,
.
.
_
=
.
mi.-
5.p.
-Cg se-nV1-
.%? gr===.w=
we-e. #
fe. ele.
gwr:
pp-N ees. q ue.s
,,s.w -w Mg s*en,ta. rep 4'iewprens ienyw w e-,