IR 05000199/1993002
| ML20058Q255 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000199 |
| Issue date: | 10/15/1993 |
| From: | Bores R, Holmes S NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20058Q220 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-199-93-02, 50-199-93-2, NUDOCS 9310260119 | |
| Download: ML20058Q255 (4) | |
Text
p, w-
--
,_
' ll. '
' ,
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION I
- Rsport N ,50-199/93-02 Docket No.'. 50-199 h License N Ed4 Licensee: Manhattan Collece Corocration Mechanical Engineering Department -
, Eiverdale. New York 10471 Facility.Name: Zero Power Reactor Inspection At: Riverdale. New York Inspection Conducted: Scotember 29.1993 Inspectors: 1 N!/
Stephen Holmes, Radiation Specialist, Effluents date Radiation Protection Section (ERPS), Facilities Radiological Safety and Safeguards Branch (FRSSB)
Approved By: /f 1d mm /C / 9J .
i
'
' Dr. Robert holes, Chidf, ERPS, FRSSB, date Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards
,
Arens Inspected: Staffing, reactor logs, operating procedures, operator requalification program, surveillances, control of experiments, and oversigh Results: Staff was well qualified and the Reactor Operations Committee was active in
- providing direction and oversight to the program. Reactor operators have been unable to perform the critical operations as frequently as required by the requalification program. An
,
. accelerated requalification plan, commensurate with the facility and staff, would be
.
submitted to the NRC for approval prior to refueling and commencing critical operation No violations of regulatory requirements were identified.'
+
931d260119 931018 PDR -ADOCKL05000199
>
PDR .c c - ;1
n_
j !;. f s
'
,
,m
-
,
DETAILS
'10 Persons Contacted
.
I ~
- Ri Berlin, Senior Reactor Operator
- W. Duggan, Reactor Administrator
- C. Stanton, Chief Reactor Supervisor
- Attended the Exit meeting on September 29,199 g I Staffing During the past year there were changes in the operations staff. The former Reactor
- Administrator (RA) resigned and the Chief Reactor Operator (CRO) took his plac Another facility member, with' extensive background in health physics and nuclear engineering, then assumed the vacated position of CRO. She was in training for her Senior Reactor Operator (SRO) license. The outgoing RA was continuing to serve as an SRO on staff. Additional staff consisted of a part time Reactor Operator (RO) #
who was pursuing a degree. This member will be graduating and leaving at the end of the year. The licensee stated that grant monies had been obtained for a graduate student on an alternating year schedule which would provide a half time student operator on a continuing basis. Both SROs and the new CRO have extensive backgrounds in health physics and the facility is supported by a contract health
,
physicist. Technical Specifications (TS) Section 6.1.3 requires a minimum staffing of
~
a licensed RO.in the control room, a licensed SRO'present in the building and Health Physicist qualified individual contactable by phone during periods when the reactor is not secured. . The operations staff as noted above satisfied TS Section 6.1.3, was qualified, and possessed the' technical expertise to perform the duties required by the license. No safety concerns or violations were identified.
t Renctor Records Reactor operating records are required by Section 6.7 of the TS. The inspector audited these records and interviewed operators. Records of power level, operating
.
periods, experiment information, calibrations, surveillances and start-up and shut-down checks were being kept. However, as a zero power (100 milliwatt) teaching reactor, a large amount of the logs and records were incorporated into the Reactor l2boratory Manual (RLM), dated February,1992. This caused the documentation to
- be somewhat scattered. Nonetheless, the reactor operating records and logs were being maintained as required by TS. .Within the scope of this inspection, no safety concerns or violations were noted.
n
Q R^
x
..
4.0' Optrallye Procedures h
Writtsn reactor operations procedures are required by Section 6.3 of the TS, and are required to be reviewed and approved by the Reactor Operations Committee (ROC)
J prior to implementation of new or revise procedures. The inspector reviewed the b operational procedures and interviewed staff members. Within the scope of this inspection, written procedures were available for those activities required by TS. A
'
majority of the procedures were contained in the RLM or the TS approved teaching experiments, presently being incorporated into a separate manual. Overall,' the licensee maintained acceptable written procedures. Within the scope of this inspection no safety concerns or violations were note .0 - Operator Reaunlification Pronram
.
The inspector reviewed the requalification program, examined training records and examinations, and interviewed operators. The inspector noted that the records were scattered, but complete and in accordance with the NRC-approved program. The inspector verified, by reviewing the operations and experiment logs, that all operators were participating in the required training and had been performing the minimum reactor manipulations up to the time the reactor was shut down in June of 199 Since the new RA was within his first requalification period and the former RA was ,
exempted from the annual requalification exam, no written tests were available for review. - The licensee stated that they would institute a formal tracking system for the documentation of the individual operator's requalification. This action will be verified in a subsequent inspection. The licensce's representatives were aware that, due to the shut down condition of the reactor, the operators were unable to fulfill the requirement of bringing the reactor critical at least once per quarter, as required by the requalification program. Therefore, they would, prior to reloading the core and bringing the reactor to power, submit an accelerated requalification plan,
-~
commensurate with their facility, to the NRC for approval. No safety concerns or violations were note .0 Sprveillances The inspector reviewed selected records and procedures for the conduct of 1 surveillances required by TS Section 4.0. As noted in previous section of this report, as a teaching reactor many of the TS required surveillances are completed as student experiments and are recorded in the laboratory log book. Others are documented in the operation and maintenance log books. The licensee stated that a formal tracking and documentation program would be initiated for the reactor surveillances. The reactor has been through an extended two phase shutdown, November 1989 to March 1992 -awaiting the new low enriched uranium fuel, and June 1992 to present -
l awaiting the c! caning of the reactor tank and components. Surveillances not specifically required for safety when the reactor is shut down, may be deferred during
!
L
y
f
.
g shutdown. Therefore, during these shutdown periods, only section 4.7 ::aweillances
'
were required. The deferred operational surveillances were being performed on the )
'
new low enriched core before it was shut down for the tank and component cleaning and they will be completed prior to reactor startup. The inspector verified that all but i one of the safety surveillances was being performed as required by TS. The last semi-annual smear survey results were not available. This survey had been i performed by an outside consultant. The licensee stated that the consultant had past-away and they had been unable to obtain the results (a new contract health physicist was being acquired). In discussion, the licensee's representative stated that another smear survey will be performed by the end of October 1993. The smears will be counted on appropriate counting equipment and evaluated by health physics personnel under the university's material license. The licensee had contracted for survey and counting instruments to allow the performance of smear surveys by the reactor staff in the future. The above actions will be reviewed in a subsequent inspection. No violations were note .0 Control of Experiments The licensee's program for the control of experiments was reviewed with respect to the requirements in TS 3.8,6.2, and the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR). The experiments presently being performed with the MCZPR are those authorized under TS Section 6.8.3.G. The experimental procedures were being converted from section seven of the old RLM into a manual of laboratory experiments as outlined in Section 8.2.9 of the new RLM. The staff was knowledgeable of the TS limitations on experiments and the requirement for ROC approval of experiments not specifically defined in section 3.8 of the TS. Within the scope of this review no safety concerns or violations were note .0 Oversieht The inspector reviewed the Reactor Operations Committee's (ROC) minutes for the past two years, focusing on operational reactor oversight. The Committee's meeting schedule and membership satisfy TS and the Committee's procedural rules. Review of the minutes indicated the Committee was active in providing appropriate guidance, reviews of operations, procedure approvals, and provided oversight of the reacto The Committee performed it's duties as required by license, TS, and administrative requirement .0 Exit Interview The inspectors met with the licensee representatives listed in Section 1.0 on September 29,1993, and summarized the scope and findings of this inspection. The licensee acknowledged the inspection f'mdings.