IR 05000193/1998202
| ML20154J355 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Rhode Island Atomic Energy Commission |
| Issue date: | 10/13/1998 |
| From: | NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20154J310 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-193-98-202, NUDOCS 9810150218 | |
| Download: ML20154J355 (15) | |
Text
,,
.
...
.
.
,
'
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
,
Docket No:
50-193 I
t License No:
R-95 Report No:
50-193/98-202 Licensee:
Rhode Island Atomic Energy Commission Facility:
Rhode Island Nuclear Science Center University of Rhode Island i
Location:
South Ferry Road Narragansett, Rhode Island Dates:
September 21-25,1998
- i Inspector:
Craig Bassett, Senior Non-Power Reactor inspector
.j l
Approved by:
Seymour H. Weiss, Director Non-Power Reactors and Decommissioning Project Directorate Division of Reactor Program Management Office of Nuclear Peactor Regulation l
o i
9810150218 981013 Y
PDR. ADOCK 05000193
-
G PDR g
.
.
-.
.-
_.
. ~.
-.
- - -
-
- - - -. -
--
'
.
.
~
.
.
,
'
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This routine, announced inspection included onsite review of various aspects of tha licensee's programs concerning the conduct of operations and emergency preparedness as they relate to the licensee's 2 Megawatt (MW) Class 1 research reactor. The licensee's programs were directed toward the protection of public health and safety and were in compliance with NRC requirements. No safety concerns or violations of regulatory requirements were identified.
Conduct of Ooerations Staffing, reporting, and record keeping met requirements specified in Technical e
Specifications (TS) 6.0.
-
Review and oversight functions required by TS 6.4 were acceptably completed by the Nuclear and Radiation Safety Committee. No 10 CFR 50.59 changes had been implemented since the last NRC operations inspection.
One Inspector Follow-up Item was identified involving the lack of documentation of
required training. Medical examinations were being completed as required.
- Facility procedures and document reviews satisfied TS 6.0 requirements.
- The reactor fuel was being inspected annually as required by TS 4.9.
- The program for surveillance and LCO confirmations was being implemented in accordance with TS requirements.
-*
. The program for the control of new experiments satisfied regulatory requirements and licensee commitments.
Emeraency Preoaredness The Emergency Plan was found acceptable by the NRC in 1995 and no revisions e
have been made recently.
e The implementing Procedures were being updated as required and were acceptable L
to carry out the provisions of the Emergency Han.
-*
Emergency responders were knowledgeable of proper actions to take in case of an l
emergency but an inspector Follow-up item was identified for failure to maintain all l-the supplies and instruments in the storage cabinets as required.
- The licensee maintained current Letters of Agreement with offsite agencies for
'
support in case of an emergency.
,
. _ _ _
t-
.
m.
,
p;
,
.
..-.
.
l-.
p.
.
L:M
'
a.
Annual drills were held b'ut the ' drill for 1997 was not documented. An inspector e <-
,
.-Follow-up item was established to verify that future drills are documented and that
- I the' drills acceptably implement the required portions of the emergency plan.
- -
- -
' Documentation of emergency preparedness training was identified as an inspector v
Follow-up item.
l:
t ( ',
l.!
'
'
.i fl
-
I
~
'
.
i I>
,
.
..
l
.
I (2 j
i-
.
i
.
i
f
!.:
L 1.
,. =
n l
,
- 1
f, I a
)
e
' '
..
y p
-
- .y-n, u
y-
,,
,.
.--e ei,
,,
,-
.-
i n
.
.
.
.
.
.
Reoort Details Sumrnarv of Plant T.m m Although the licensee's non-power reactor (NPR) was not operated during this inspection, a review of the applicable records indicated that the reactor continued to be operated at various power levels up to the maximum authorized level of 2 MW for physics experiments and to support research.
1. Conduct of Operations a. NPR Oroanization. Ooerations, and Maintenance Activities (Insoection Procedure llPl 39745)
1. Insoection Scoce To verify staffing, reporting, and record keeping requirements specified in Technical Specifications (TS) 6.0 wcre being met, the inspector reviewed:
organization and staffing for the facility, e
e administrative controls, e the reactor console logs, and e the annual reports.
2. Observations and Findinas The licensee's current operational organization included a Director, an Assistant Director for Reactor Operations, Reactor Operators, and a Radiation Safety Officer. This organization was consistent with that specified in the TS. Other positions were listed on the organizational chart but the responsibilities for those positions were not specified by the TS. It was noted that the Director, the Assistant Diractor, and the Reactor Supervisor were all qualified Senior Reactor Operators.
The Assistant Director for Reactor Operations maintained and issued a six-month schedule for reactor operations, maintenance, and surveillance activities. This practice kept the staff aware of upcoming activities and helped ensure administrative control over operational aspects of the facility.
A review of the reactor console logs showed that they were being maintained as required and problems, if any, were being documented. The annual reports
summarized the required information and were issued at the frequency specified
in the TS.
Through a review of applicable records and interviews with licensee personnel, the inspector noted that the Facility Engineer, a position that had been filled by a Professional Engineer (PE), had retired about three years ago. Due to budget constraints, no replacement had been hired. Although this position is specified l
!
I i
l
-
- t
.
.
-
.
.
.
~
in the organizational diagram in TS 6.0, it is not one required to be filled by the TS for facility operation. However, it was noted that the licensee is currently in the process of revising facility documents and upgrading facility equipment to
,
increase their authorized power level for the reactor from two to five megawatts.
This effort is being reviewed, and must be approved, by the NRC. Facility management must ensure that staffing is acceptable to support safe power upgrade activities.
3. Conclusions Staffing, reperting, and record keeping met the requirements specified in TS 6.0.
b. NPR Review. Audit. and Desian Chance Functions (IP 40745)
1. Insoection Scooe To verify that the licensee had established and conducted reviews and audits as required and to determine whether modifications to the facility were consistent with 10 CFR 50.59 and the TS, the inspector reviewed:
Nuclear and Radiation Safety Committee meeting minutes,
Nuclear and Radiation Safety Subcommittee meeting minutes, e
'
- Audits and reviews, and e Engineering changes under 10 CFR 50.59.
2. Observations and Findincs Minutes of the Nuclear and Radiation Safaty Committee (NRSC) showed that the committee met at the required frequency and that a quorum was present. The topics considered during the meetings were appropriate and as stipulated in TS 6.4. The Nuclear and Radiation Safety Subcommittee and/or persons from other institutions conducted audits and reviews as required and the NRSC e
reviewed the results. Problems noted during audits were discussed and recommendations for improvement were made. The licensee acceptably implemented the improvemer:ts.
The inspector noted that two former members of the NRSC had recently retired or lef t the committee. The resumes of the individuals who replaced those who
left were reviewed. The individuals were well qualified to serve on the NRSC.
l Through review of applicable records and interviews with licensee personnel, the inspector determined that no engineering changes had been initiated or completed since the last NRC operations inspectio.
.
.
~
.
e
3. Conclusions Review and oversight functions required by TS 6.4 were acceptably completed by the NRSC. No 10 CFR 50.59 changes had been carried out since the last NRC operations inspection.
c. NPR Ooerator Licenses Recualification. and Medical Activities (IP 41745)
1. Insoection Scooe To determine that operator requalification activities and training were conducted as required and that medical requirements were met, the inspector reviewed:
e active license status, logs and records of reactivity manipulations, e
o written examinations, e training records, and e medical examination records.
2. Observations and Findinas The licensee currently has three qualified senior reactor operators (SROs) and one reactor operator (RO). Two of the three SROs and the RO maintain active licenses while the third SRO's license is inactive. It was noted that, although no reactor operator licenses had expired, two people are due this fall to renew their licenses. The licensee was aware of this and was making preparations.
Training had reportedly been conducted in most of the areas outlined in the licensee's " Operator Requalification and Recertification Training Program Plan for the Rhode Island Nuclear Science Center." However, it was noted that no lectures had been given during the past year and a half and that certain training reviews and examinations had not been documented. Monthly and quarterly training was being documented. However, the Annual Operations Tests and the Annual Walk-through Examinations were not documented for 1997 or 1998.
Through discussions and observations of records the inspector verified that operator knowledge was acceptable. The licensee was informed that the i
documentation of required requalification training would be noted by the NRC as
'
an Inspector Follow-up Item (IFI) and would be verified during a future inspection (IFl 50-193/98-202-01).
Operators were receiving the required medical examinations at the frequency specified.
3. Conclusions
'
.
.
.
.
.
~
3. Conclusions One Inspector Follow-up Item was identified involving the lack of documentation of required training. Medical examinations were being completed as required.
1. Insoection Scoce To determine whether facility procedures met TS requirements, the inspector i
reviewed:
e operating proceduros, j
e administrative procedures, and e procedural reviews and updates.
2. Observations and Mndinos Operating procedures were acceptable for the facility and the current staffing level. Documents were being reviewed annually as required and updated as needed, it was noted that Appendix O, " Primary Flow Channel Calibration Check," to the operating procedures and Section 6, " Reactor and Control System Checkout Procedures," had been revised in 1997. No operations were conducted during this inspection but adherence to procedures was apparent from a review of logs and other records.
3. Conclusions Facility procedures and document reviews satisfied TS 6.0 requirements.
e. NPR Fuel Movement (IP 60745)
1.10soection Scone To verify adherence to fuel handling and inspection TS 4.9 requirements, the inspector reviewed:
e fuel handling procedures, e fuel inspection procedures, and applicable logs and records.
e 2. Observations and Findinas The inspector determined that the reactor fuel had been inspected annually in accordance with fuel handling and inspection procedures. The procedures and radiological controls used were accept,bl ~
.
.
-
.
.
.
.
3. Conclusions The licensee's reactor fuel was being inspected annually as required by TS 4.9.
f.
1. Insoection Scoce To determine that surveillances and Limiting Conditions for Operations verifications were being completed as required by TS 4.0, the inspector reviewed:
e selected surveillance procedures, e selected surveillance data and records, and e Limiting Conditions for Operations.
2. Observations and Findinas The inspector noted that selected daily and other periodic checks, tests, verifications, and/or calibrations for TS-required surveillances and Limiting Conditions for Operations (LCO) were completed as required. The surveillances and LCO verifications reviewed were completed on schedule as required and in accordance with licensee procedures. All the recorded results were within the TS and procedural prescribed parameters. The records and logs reviewed were accurate, complete, and being maintained as required.
3. Conclusions The program for surveillance and I.CO confirmations was being carried out in accordance with TS requirements.
1. Insnection Scoce To verify that experiments were being conducted within approved guidelines, the inspector reviewed:
e experiment rev!ew and approval by the NRSC, e potential hazards identification, and a control of irradiated items.
2. Observations and Findinas The inspector reviewed an experiment designed to irradiate cell culture media and cells. It was noted that the licensee used form NSC-55 that required detailed dose rate calculations, identification of precautions, and a listing of
-
.
.
'
.
,
.
procedures to be used. The form was acceptably completed and submitted to the NRSC for approvalin accordance with TS 6.4. The experiment was observed by the facility health physics technician and surveys were done following completion of the irradiation. The irradiated materials were released to a laboratory in accordance with procedures.
3. Conclusions The license's program for the control of new experiments satisfied reguletory requirements and licensee commitments.
2. Emergency Preparedness a. Chances to the Emeroency Plan (IP 82745)
1. Insoection Scooe To determine compliance with the requirements of 10 CFR 50.54(q) and the licensee's Emergency Plan, the inspector reviewed:
'the Emergency Plan and implementing Procedures,
- NRSC meeting minutes, recent revisions and updates, and e
applicable letters and documents concerning the Emergency Plan.
e 2. Observations and Findinas The licensee submitted a revised Emergency Plan (E-Plan) to the NRC on July 6, 1994. The NRC reviewed the changes and found that they were acceptable to implement tne requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E. The licensee was notified of this by setter dated August 25,1995. No changes have been made since then. The inspector did note that the E-Plan was last reviewed by the NRSC on December 4,1996. Therefore, the plan is due to be reviewed this fall.
3. Conclusions The licensee's Emergency Plan was acceptable by the NRC in 1995 and no revisions have been made recently, b. Emeroencv Plan Imolementina Procedures (IP 82745)
.
1. Insoection Scoce To verify the adequacy of the licensee's Emergency Plan implementing Procedures, the inspector reviewed:
the Emergency Plan and implementing Procedures, e
.
.
.
-
,.
'
.
.
e NRSC meeting minutes, and e recent revisions and updates.
2. Observations and Findinas The licensee had reviewed and revised the implementing Procedures as required.
The procedures were last updated in July 1997 and were acceptable to implement the provisions stipulated in the E-Plan.
3. Conclusions The Implementing Procedures were being updated as required and were acceptable to implement the provisions of the Emergency Plan.
c. Emeraencv Preparedness Proaram imolementation (IP 82745)
1. Insoection Scone To determine the adequacy of the licensee's Emergency Preparedness Program, the inspector reviewed:
e facilities, e equipment, e instrumentation, e supplies on hand, and e emergency response personnel training.
2. Observations and Findinas The facilities and equipment set aside for emergency response was generally being maintained as required. However, the inspector noted that not all the supplies listed in Appendix 3.1 to the implementing Procedures were in the cabinets that had been set aside for storage of such gear. Specifically, five boxes of disposable gloves were not located in the storage cabinets, and a survey meter, a GM CDV-700 Survey instrument with earphones, was not staged for use. The inspector verified that the licensee had access to other gloves and monitoring instrumentation that could be used in the event of an emergency to acceptably implement the plan requirements. The licensee was informed that the availability of required supplies and instrumentation would be noted by the NRC as an IFl and would be verified during a future inspection (IFl 50-193/98-202-02).
Through records review and interviews with liccnsee personnel, emergency responders were determined to be knowledgeable of the proper actions to take in case of a.1 emergenc.
_.
_
._
._.
-
_
_
..
_
_
l.'
'.
.
.
.
~
l.
3. Conclusions
!
l
' Emergency responders were knowledgeable of proper actions to take in case of an emergency but an inspector Follow-up Item was identified for failure to
- maintain all the supplies and instruments in the storage cabinets as required.
!
d. Offsite Sucoort (IP 827451 1. Insoection Scoce To verify the adequacy of the offsite support that would be provided to the licensee in case of an emergency, the inspector reviewed:
the Emergency Plan and implementing Procedures, e
e Letters of Agreement, and o
e communications capabilities.
2. Observations and Findinas Updated Letters of Agreemer.t were on file indicating that various federal, state, and local agencies were available to respor.d in case of an emergency. An i
agreement also had been established with the Rhode Island Hospital in case a contaminated injured person required medical treatment. Communications with
these agencies had been tested on a periodic basis.
l'
3. Conclusions l
The licensee maintained current Letters of Agreement with offsite agencies for
. support in case of an emergency.
e. Emeraencv Preoaredness Exercises and Drills (IP 82745)
1. Insoection Scoce
l l
To determine that the licensee wan conducting the exercises and drills as
specified in the Emergency Plan, the inspector reviewed:
e the critiques of drill performance by emergency responders, and-e the documentation of recent drills.
,
!
2. Observations and Findinas The inspector noted that drills had been conducted annually as required by the Emergency Plan. Critiques were generally held following the drills to discuss the positive and negative aspects of the exercise and to develop possible solutions
,
to any problems identified. It was noted that the drill held in 1997 had not been
documented in a memorandum to the staff but was shown on the calendars of
'
.
'
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
various staff members. The critique notes of the 1996 and 1998 drills indicated that the drills had been either too challenging (not realistic) or not challenging enough. The licensee acknowledged the importance of conducting appropriate drills and that drills usually highlight areas for improvement. The inspector verified through discussions that licensae personnel were acceptably prepared to implement the requirements of the Emergency Plan. The licensee was informed that the issues of condu_cting dnits to test Emergency Plan requirements acceptably and of properly documenting each drill would be nuied by the NGC ac an IFl and would be verified during a future inspection (IFl 50-193/98-202-03).
3. Conclusions Annual drills were held but the drill for 1997 was not documented. An inspector Follow-up ltem was established to verify that future drills are documented and to verify that the drills acceptably implement the required portions of the Emergency.
f.
Emeraencv Preoaredness Trainino (lP 82745)
1. Insoection Scong To verify the adequacy of the licensee's emergency training, the inspector reviewed:
e the Emergency Plan, and a training records.
2. Observations and Firidinas in the area of Emergency Preparedness and Response, training was reportedly being done but was not documented. Licensee personnel indicated that training was done as part of the reactor operator requalification program but no records of the completion of such could be found. The licensee was informed that the issue of documenting training pertaining to emergency preparedness would be noted by the NRC as an IFl and would be verified during a future inspection along with the verification of documentation of other operator training (IFl 50-193/98-202-01).
3. Conclusions Documentation of emergency preparedness training was identified as an inspector Follow-up Item.
.
L
.
,
'
.
-
,
.
3. Follow-up on Previously identified inspector Follow-up items a. Inspection Scope
The inspector followed up on three Inspector Follow-up Items that had been noted during previous inspection and docurnented in Inspection Report No. 50-193/96-01, in inspection Report Np. 50-193/96-02, and in inspection Report No. 50-193/97-01.
The inspector reviewed the licensee's response, evaluation, and corrective actions,
'
I as applicable, to the piublems or issuca noted.
b. Observations and Findings 1. IFl 50-193/96-01-02 (Closed): Follow-up on QA Program to Ensure Completion of Changes Associated with Equipment Modifications.
The in.spector verified that the licensee had established a Quality Assurance (QA)
Program to govern actions taken when changes or modifications are made to the facility and to equipment. The QA Program is under the cognizance of the Reactor Supervisor.
2. IFl 50-193/96-02-02 (Closed): Replace isolation Valve #1 in the ECCS System.
The inspector verified that the licensee had taken corrective actions. Isolation Valve #1, which originally had a pressure rating of approximately 100 pounds, had been replaced by a valve with a rating of 150 pounds.
3. IFl 50-193/97-01-01 (Closed): Ensure that the 10 CFR 50.59 Evaluation Form includes a Block Indicating an NRSC Review Has Been Completed.
The inspector verified that the licensee's 50.59 Evaluation Form was revised to include a signature block that showed that the Nuclear and Radiation Safety Committee had reviewed and approved of the change being proposed.
c. Conclusigns Three Inspector Follow-up items identified during previous NRC inspections were closed during this inspection.
4. Exit interview The inspection scope and results were summarized on September 25,1998, with licensee representatives. The inspector discussed the findings for each area reviewed.
The licensee acknowledged the findings and did not identify as proprietary any of the material provided to or reviewed by the inspector during the inspection.
l
.
,
'
<
l
.
'
'
PARTIAL LIST OF PERSONS CONTACTED Licensee R. Clement, Radiation Protection Officer (RPO)
W. Simoneau, Assistant Director for Reactor Operations V. Rose, Chairman, Rhode Island. Atomic Energy Commission
{
T. Tehan, Director C. Widdifield, Reactor Supervisor -
I INSPECTION PROCEDURES USED IP 39745:
Class 1 Non-Power Reactors Organization, Operations, and Maintenance Activities IP 40745:
Class 1 Non-Power Reactors Review and Audit and Design Change Functions IP 41745:
Class 1 Non-Power Reactors Operator Licenses, Requalification, and Medical Activities IP 42745:
Class 1 Non-Power Reactor Procedures IP 60745:
Class 1 Non-Power Reactor Fuel Movement IP 61745:
Class 1 Non-Power Reactor Surveillance IP 69745:
Class 1 Non-Power Reactor Experiments IP 82745:
Class 1 Non-Power Reactor Emergency Preparedness ITEMS OPENED, CLOSED, AND DISCUSSED Ooened 50-193/98-202-01 IFl Follow-up on the timely documentation of required requalification and emergency preparedness training.
50-193/98-202-02 IFl Follow-up on the availability of supplies and instruments that are required to be stored in the Emergency Storage Cabinets.
50-193/98-202-03 IFl Follow-up on the issues of conducting appropriate emergency preparedness drills that are sufficiently challenging and of properly documenting each drill.
l U
l l.
50-193/96-01-02 IFl Follow-up on QA Program to Ensure Completion of Changes
'
Associated with Equipment Modifications.
50-193/96-02-02 IFl Replace Isolation Valve #1 in the ECCS System.
50-193/97-01-01 IFl Ensure that the 10 CFR 50.59 Evaluation Form includes a Block Indicating an NRSC Review Has Been Completed.
.
..
..... -. _.....
...
.. -.
...,
...
-.
-~
. ~ -.
-.
.. -... -
r.
-
,
.
=
.
.g,
'4
,
LIST OF ACRONYMS US(D
!
CFR Code of Federal Regulations IFl'
. Inspector Follow-up item -
IP
-;nspection Procedure j
LCO.
' Limiting Condition for Operations
. MW -
e Megawatt.
I NPR Non-Power Reactor.'
'
NRC
. Nuclear Regulatory Commission lNRSC Nuclear and Radiation Safety Committee QA Quality Assurance
- RIAEC.
Rhode Island Atomic Energy Commission'.
RINSC.
' Rhode Island Nuclear Science Center
- RO Reactor operator RPO Radiation Protection Officer i
.SRO
' Senior reactor operator TS=
Technical Specifications TRTR Test, Research, and Training Reactor URI.
University of Rhode Island i
l
.
-
[.
!-
f D.
j r
..
g
,
4
+
-
.
_ _ _
_
_
.
-