IR 05000187/1982001
| ML20062H615 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000187 |
| Issue date: | 07/16/1982 |
| From: | Willett D, Thomas Young NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20062H594 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-187-82-01, 50-187-82-1, NUDOCS 8208160115 | |
| Download: ML20062H615 (6) | |
Text
.
.
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REG!0N V
,
.
-
M Report No. 50-187/82-01 Docket No. S'0-187 License No. R-90 Safeguards Group Licensee:
Northrop Corporation - Research and Technolony Center
'
One Research Park'
Palos Verdes Peninsula, California 90274 Facility Name:
Northrop Reactor (TRIGA MARK F)
Inspection at:
Hawthorne, California Inspection conducted: June 28-30, 1982 Inspectors:
A4:1HE 7-U -~ A i
."Willett,feactorInspector Date Signed Approved by: bb h(
,
(/ (fate / Signed 4 2[f, / 9N T.,Youn6) Jr. (j Cr if, Reactor Project Section 2, ReactoV Operations Projects Branch Summary:
Inspection on June 28-30, 1982 (Report No. 50-187/82-01)
Areas Insnected:
Routine, unannounced inspection of facility organization; logs and records; requalification training; facility procedures; surveillances; review and audit activities; exoeriments; and independent inspection. The inspection involved 16 inspector-hours by one NRC inspector.
Results: Of the eight areas inspected, no deviations or items of noncompliance were found in se/en areas. One apparent item of noncompliance was identified in the area of review and audit activities (see paragraph 3).
8208160115 820727 DR ADOCK 05000187 PDR
-
.
.
g s
.
,
,
DETAILS
'
'
1 ".
Persons Contacted
~
- Dr. W. Crandall, Cha'irman, Corporate Radiation Safety Committee
- Mr. D. Avant, Manager, Administrative Services
- Mr. G.' Cozens, Reactor Suoervisor Mr. F. Blair, Reactor Operator Mr. J. Wood, Health Physics / Reactor Technician Mrs. J. Chalmers, Consultant
- Denotes those present at the exit interview.
2.
Organization, Logs, and Records The organization structure and personnel responsible for the operation and administration of the Northrop' Reactor Facility remain unchanged from that previously reported.
,
Through discussions with licensee representatives and an examination of facility records, on a sampling basis, the inspector found the qualifications and staffing of licensee personnel, including members of the Reactor Safeguards Committee, consistent with technical specification requirements.
Representative samples of facility operation and maintenance logs were examined to verify performance of operational activities consistent with administrative and regulatory requirements. The specific records examined were as follows:
Mechanical Maintenance Log, November 1980 to present Electrical Maintenance Log, November 1980 to present Operations Console Log, November 1980 to present
'
Startup and Shutdown Checklists, November 1980 to present Monthly Checklists, November 1980 to present The inspector expressed the following concerns, regarding his review
.
of the maintenance and operation logs:
l l
a.
Equipment problems identified in the maintenance logs were not documented in the operations log as per guidance contained in i
the Operating Instructions, Section:
" Reactor Operations' Log Book," Item Number 5.
!
b.
Documentation for such items as a suspected loss of power over the weekend and new water leakage needs to be evidenced by l
operations log book entries.
{
,
~
,
+
..
,
.
Based on discussions with licensee representatives and examinations of the above records, the inspector stated that it appears the licensee has made progress, since the last inspection, in their records system -
and adherence to procedures.
However, the licensee has a continuing problem following existing administrative requirements.
The licensee acknowledged these findings and committed to direct additional management resources and controls'to insure that the operations log accurately reflects all facility activities.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
3.
Review and Audit The licensee's review and audit activities since the last inspection (November 1980) were examined. This review included discussions with licensee personnel and a review of selected samples of the following documents:
Corporate kadiation Committee (CRC) minutes Reactor Safeguards Subconunittee (RSS) minutes Operating procedures Technical Specifications This review included considerations of meeting frequency, quorum, 3mbership, and meeting contents. Changes to the facility design-
<ere found to have been completed consistent with the criteria of 10 CFR 50.59. There were no new experiments approved since the last inspection.
The inspector expressed the following concerns.
a.
The written rules and procedures defining the CRC's authority, purview and administrative provisions do not adequately address the technical specification requirements, b.
Administrative procedures for the RSS do not adequately address all aspects of the administrative requirements as outlined in the technical specifications.
c.
The October 1981 quarterly meeting was held without a qualified health physicist present as per the requirements of the technical specifications. This is an item of apparent noncompliance.
d.
It appeared that there were numerous instances of minor facility.
equipment and procedural problems which were going unresolved.
<
These problems were not being identified to the appropriate level of management (for corrective action) by keeping status and i
'
assigned responsibilities, priorities, and completion dates.
-
~
.
.
-3-The licensee has committed to review the bylaws of the CRC and the Charter of the RSS, and balance them against the requirements of the technical specificati ms by January 1,1983.
The licensee;has committed to institute a tracking system for facility problems to insure that corrective action is timely and controlled. This' corrective action system is to be inservice by January 1, 1983.
.
4.
Surveillance The inspector examined selected completed surveillance records and activities to verify adequacy and conformance to technical specifications,
'and to determine if facility. operation was consistent with limiting conditions for operation. The parameters sampled included:
Rod drop times, excess reactivity, conductivity, fuel inspection, and power calibrations.
The inspector expressed the following observations, regarding his review of Monthly Checklist Number 219 for the period of November 1981:
a.
Checklist Section Number 1 data was not recorded.
b.
Checklist Item Number 7 did not indicate whether or not the light check test was performed, c.
Checklist Item Number 13, rod drop times, were measured as
"0K" and not as specific values.
d.
Checklist was not signed off by the Chief Northrop Reactor Reviewer.
The licensee acknowledged that these concerns were valid and has committed to exercise greater management controls in this area to preclude similiar occurrences.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
5.
Procedures i
The inspection included an examination of the licensee's operating procedures for technical adequacy and for compliance with administrative and regulatory requirements. Procedures reviewed included those associated with reactor startup and steady state operation, reactor shutdown, and conduct of maintenance and experiments.
The inspector expressed the following concerns:
a.
The " Operating Instructions and Procedures for the Northrop l
Reactor" were last revised in July of 1973.
!
,
I.
}
l
--
-_
.
.
.
-4-b.
No formal individual specific approved written instructions for control rod removal and replacement exist..(This procedure should also address criticality concerns.)
c.
Greater effort should be given to updating and correcting as-built / modified facility and equipment drawings.
d.
Operating instructions, administrative procedures, emergency plans, and other facility documentation should have individual unique document identifiers, in addition to issue and revision dates, and approvals.
The licensee informed the inspector that a program had been initiated to update and upgrade the facilities operating.
procedures, and that, as part of this progran, corrected as-built / modified facility and equipment drawings would be addressed. The licensee committed to generate a control rod removal and replacement written instruction by January 1,1983.
The licensee conveyed his intent to define a program which places all facility documentation on a two-year audit / review-cycle. This program will detail document schedules, define responsibilities, establish criteria for audits and' resolution ~
and documentation of audit results. This program will be in place by January 1, 1983.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
'
6.
Recualification Training The licensee's operator recualification program was reviewed against the requirements of 10 CFR 55 and the approved operator requalification program.
The inspector reviewed the training files for each reactor operator
'
and verified that the records contained documentation of reactivity
.
manipulations, evaluations, examinations, and other activities described in the requalification program.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
7.
Experiments The inspector examined selected irradiation requests and experiments.
No new experiments have been approved since the last inspection (November 1980).
"
,
No items of noncomoliance or deviations were identified.
_.
.
-
.
.
-. -
-- -.
-
.
..
,
-5-t 8.
Independent Inspection The inspector walked throughout areas of the facility to inspect the general state of housekeeping and to verify that monitoring instrumentation was reading or recording, as necessary.
The inspector expres'ed the following concerns:
s a.
Some facility instrumentation position, alarm and power supply indicating lights were burned out and not being replaced in a
-
timely manner.
b.
A damper position indicator (D-8) did not indicate in either the open or closed position.
c.
The reactor console back panels are open and exposed. There is no forced filtered circulation, and the equipment and terminations are subject to degradation by air particulate containments, d.
Electrical te'rminations and cable runs, of a temporary nature, have obviously exceeded their expected service time.
The licensee has committed to maintain the facility position, alarm and power indicating lights as part of the equipment functional check.
The licensee has committed to expend additional effort to route and terminate wiring permanently and to secure the panels to a controlled environment in a timely manner consistent with present facility modifications (Phase II).
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identifield.
9.
Exit Interview The inspector met with licensee. representatives (denoted in paragraph 1)
at the conclusion of the inspection on June 30, 1982. The scope and findings of the inspection were discussed and summarized as set forth in paragraphs 2 through 8.
l i
--
_
_
_ _ _