IR 05000199/1996001
| ML20134B582 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000199 |
| Issue date: | 01/23/1997 |
| From: | NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20134B567 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-199-96-01, 50-199-96-1, NUDOCS 9701300212 | |
| Download: ML20134B582 (7) | |
Text
.
.
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION I
Docket No: 50-199 License No: R-94 Report No: 50-199/96-01 Licensee: Manhattan College Corporation Facility: Zero Power Reactor Location: Riverdale, New York Dates: December 9-12,1996 Inspector: Thomas F Dragoun, Project Scientist Approved by: John R. White, Chief, Radiation Protection Branch Division of Reactor Safety I
,
.
9701300212 970123 PDR ADOCK 05000199 O PDR
_ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ -
. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY -
Loss of alllicensed staff by the end of the current academic term was likely. The reactor core will be placed in storage pending management decisions on the future of the facilit Three violations of license requirements were observe I i
,
I
II l
.
O Report Details Summary of Plant Status The reactor was fueled but the control console and facility were shut down. The security system was active. The pool water purification system cycled automatically and water clarity m good. Repair of the cathodic protection system was effective and no corrosion l of sol liner or reactor structure was eviden l l
01 Conduct of Operations l l
01.1 9manization and Operations and Maintenance Activities J l Insoection Scone (Insoection Procedure 40750) l The inspector reviewed:
e organization and staffing,
- administrative controls, and I
'
- the MCZPR Operations and maintenance log l Observations and Findinas l
The previous Reactor Administrator, who is the current Radiation Safety Officer, l retired during this inspection. The current Reactor Administrator (RA) indicated that he will act as RSO until a replacement is identified by the Reactor Operations Committee. However, the current RA stated that he also is leaving the college at the end of the academic year. The Chief Reactor Supervisor (CRS), an adjunct professor, also stated that her teaching contract expires at year-end and therefore could not continue to fulfill her reactor operations responsibilities. Loss of these personnel constitutes loss of alllicensed reactor operators and would prohibit manipulation of fue /
On December 10,1996, the inspector met with the Provost, Dean of the School of Engineering, RA, and CRS to discuss this situation. The licensee stated that all fuel would be removed from the core, placed in the original shipping containers, and stored by December 22,1996. This matter will be reviewed in a future inspection (Inspector Followup item 50-199/96-01-01) The licensee also stated that the NRC would be informed of the future uses of the facility as soon as the upper management internal discussions were complet Many entries in the console log were recorded as student experiments. Some TS surveillance requirements are completed as part of these experiments. To assist the inspector in determining the surveillance schedule, the CRS provided a useful cross-reference relating conduct of an experiment to a particular surveillanc Maintenance log entries indicated that safety equipment was repaired as necessar . . _ _ . _ _ _ _
___
, : Conclusions Loss of alllicensed operators within six months was probab!e unless new operators -
i are trained and qualified. Administrative controls of reactor operations were '
appropriat i 02 Operational Status of Facilities and Equipment 02.1 Surveillanca i
- Inspection Scope (Insoection Procedure 40750)
The inspector reviewed:
'
.
e surveillance data, and i e limiting conditions of operation i
- Observations and Findinas i
i The new LEU core was loaded in April 1995. The reactor was operated periodically
'
over the next few months and the core parameters were measured. Control rod worth and reactivity insertion rates were within the values given in TS. However, i excess reactivity was determined to be between 0.73% and 0.78% Ak/k, which
- exceeds the limiting condition for operations specified in TS 3.1.3(A). Subsequent i operation of the reactor without adjusting excess reactivity constitutes an apparent
<
violation of TS requirements (Vio 50-199/96-01-02).
, in addition, TS 2.2 states that the limiting safety system setting shall be on reactor
] maximum power level not exceeding 0.125 watt or 125% of full power. The facility operating license number R-94, condition 2.C (1) states "The licensee may operate the reactor at power levels not in excess of 0.1 watt (thermal)". However, reactor power was not determined during characterization and subsequent operation of the new core. Failure to determine reactor power constitutes an apparent l violation of a license condition (Vio 50-199/96-01-03).
3 Most surveillances on safety systems were performed at the required intervals and the results were satisfactory. However, TS 4.2.3 states, in part, that rod drop times shall be measured semi-annually. Records indicated that this was last done in April 1995. The RA stated that the data for later measurements was kept on loose
paper and inadvertently not entered into the console log. He also demonstrated that the testing apparatus was stillin place from the last test. The records could not be located by the end of the inspection. Failura to measure rod drop times once in 1995 and twice in 1996 constitutes an apparent violation of TS requirements (Vio 50-199/96-01-04). .Qonclusions Certain limiting conditions for operation and surveillance requirements were not l satisfied.
-
i
. l
l
!
'05 Operator Training and Qualification i jnsoection Scooe (Insoection Procedure 40750!
' The inspector reviewed:
o active license status, o written examinations, and :'
o medical evaluations
b. Observations and Findinas An a:celerated requalification program was completed in 1995 prior to load of the new core. For 1996, the program elements were routine. Use of the reactor for periodic student training courses during the year provided an opportunity for the ,
staff to satisfy the requalification requirements. Records indicated that console l manipulations, written examinations, and medical evaluations were conducted as require c. Conclusions Conduct of the operator requalification program was satisfactor ;
P1 Conduct of EP Activities a. Scoce (Insoection Procedure 40750)
j The inspector reviewed:
.
e facilities, equipment, supplies,and
' e offsite support
-
b. Observations and Findinas !
- The emergency plan is not a separate document but is included as chapter 7 of the
- Reactor Laboratory Manual. The supply of protective clothing and radiation monitoring equipment was adequate for emergency resrmv>e. Off-site support was
'
available as required. No periodic drills are specified in *% olan and none were
. conducted.
i c. Conclusions
The emergency plan wr.s P.0c.9ptably implemented.
l
! ._
.
.
R Radiological Protection and Chemistry Controls R Radiation Protection Scope (Inspection Procedure 40750)
The inspector reviewed:
- * radiological signs and postings,
! * routine radiation surveys, e instrument calibration, and i e personnel exposure records, Observations and Findinas The RA stated that the 1996 annual review of the HP program was due and would (
be used by the outgoing RSO (Dr. Berlin) to brief his replacement (Dr Luckett).
Routine surveys were completed on schedule and recorded. Exposure data
- indicated that personnel and public area exposures were not detectabl i
!
l Laboratory analysis capability has improved due to equipment acquired with government grants. A sensitive sodium iodide detector attached to a personal computer for spectrum analysis was acquired for water sample analysis, in addition, portable radiation curvey meters were replaced with new, reliable model i No radioactive materials were transferred or waste shipped from the fa cility since the last inspectio I
~l Conclusions The facility radiation protection program has been maintained in accordance with regulatory requirements and licensee commitment X1 Exit Meeting Summary (Inspection Procedure 30703)
The inspector presented the inspection results to members of licensee management at the conclusion of the inspection on December 12,1996. The licensee acknowledged the findings presented.
.
PARTIAL LIST OF PERSONS CONTACTED Licensee R. Berlin, RSO W. Duggan, Reactor Administrator W. Jackson, Provost J. Patterson, Dean of the School of Engineering C. Stanton, Chief Reactor Supervisor
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - -
O
.
INSPECTION PROCEDURES USED IP 30703: ENTRANCE AND EXIT INTERVIEWS IP 40750: CLASS 11 NON-POWER REACTORS ITEMS OPENED, CLOSED, AND DISCUSSED Opene_d 50-199/96-01-01 IFl Off-load the reactor core and place it in storag /96-01-02 VIO TS reactivity LCO exceeded during operations.
l 50-199/96-01-03 VIO Determine reactor powe /96-01-04 VIO Conduct rod dro. ' nes measurement Closed None LIST OF ACRONYMS USED CFR Code of Federal Regulations CRS Chief Reactor Supervisor l EP Emergency preparedness
'
HP Health Physics NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission MCZPR Manhattan College Zero Power Reactor RA Reactor Administrator RSO Radiation Safety Officer l TS Technical Specifications l
l l
l
_