IR 05000224/1979001
| ML19225A514 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Berkeley Research Reactor |
| Issue date: | 05/16/1979 |
| From: | Faulkenberry B, Horn A, Miller L NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19225A508 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-224-79-01, 50-224-79-1, NUDOCS 7907190484 | |
| Download: ML19225A514 (4) | |
Text
.
.
.
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COM1lISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFC2 CEMENT
REGION V
Report Fc. __50-22 4/ 79-01 Docket No.
50-224 License No.
R-101 Safeguards Group Licensee:
University of California Berkeley, California 94720
_
__
-
Facility Name:
Ber'<.eley Research Reactor (TNGA Mark III)
Inspection at: _ Berkeley, California Inspection conducted:
April 24-25, 1979
_
/ M b ts
[*r-1//f Inspectors:
L. F/-Miller, Reactor Inspector Date Signed
/IWN~
S/M/7'/
~. d(, Horn, Reactor inspector Date' Signed h
Date Signed NM/79 Approved By:
I
^/
.
-
B. H. F'aT21kenbe'rry, Chief acadog Project Section 2, P'v e S Ver.ed Reactor Operations and I uclear Support Branch bummary:
Inspection on April 24-25, 1979 (Report No. 50-224/79-01)
Areas Inspected:
Routine, unannounced inspection of facility organization, logs and records; requalification training; procedures; surveillance; review and audit; experiments; and independent inspection.
The in-spection involved 22 inspector-hours onsite by two NRC inspectors.
Results: No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
RV Forrr 719 (?)
b lh (ls 1G7 I /i j 70 7/?&ld
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted
- Professor S. Kaplan, Reactor Administrator
- Dr. T. Lim, Reactor Supervisor H. Braun, Chief Reactor Operator J. Harrell, Supervisor, Electronics Shop G. Little, Reactor Health Physicist
- D'enotes those attending the exit interview.
2.
Organization, Logs and Records The organizational structure for the operation and administration of the Berkeley Research Reactor changed since the previous inspection.
Professor S. Kaplan is the Reactor Administrator, Dr. T. Lim is the Reactor Supervisor and Dr. S. Markowitz is the Chairman of the Reactor Hazards Committee.
Through discussions with licensee representatives and an examination of facility records, the inspector found that the qualification levels, authorities and responsibilities of licensee personnel, including members of the Reactor Hazards Committee, were censistent with the Technical Specification requirements and the Safety Analysis Report.
Facility operation and maintenance logs were examined and found to document the performance of operational and maintenance activities consistent with administrative requirements. The specific records examined were as follows:
a.
Maintenance Log - 1978 b.
Operations Log Books Nos. 49 through 53 for 1978 c.
Daily Reactor Startup and Shutdown Checklist for 1978 d.
Power " Pulse" Log flo items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
3.
Review and Audit The Reactor Hazards Committee has met quarterly since the previous inspection.
The ninutes of the meetings held on June 12, September 26, December 14, 1978 and February 22, 1979 were reviewed.
bk lQ@
-2-
-
One change to the facility design was found by the inspector to have been completed.
The records of this change were consistent with the criteria of 10 CFR 50.59.
The change replaced a Reuter-Stokes linear power detector with a new one.
The licensee described this modification to the NRC, Region V office in their letter of July 13, 1978.
Various aspects of facility operation have been audited by the Reactor Hazards Committee members.
The inspector reviewed the audits done since June, 1978.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
4.
Requalification Training A review of the facility records and personnel training files by the inspector verified that the licensee had implemented the requali-fication program for licensed operators consistent with that which was approved by the Division of Reactor Licensing on November 4, 1974.
One licensed operator (Kaplan) has been recertified as an active licensed operator following the completion of an annual examination, console training, and evaluation by the Reactor Supervisor.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
5.
Procedures Written instructions have remained essentially unchanged since the previous inspection.
The inspector directly observed the startup, operation and shutdown of the reactor.
Facility procedures were adhered to during these activities and appeared to provide adequate technical guidance to safely perform the activities.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
6.
Surveillance The inspector selected the following periodic surveillance require-ments of the Technical Specifications for review:
a.
Operability of all reactor control and position interlocks.
b.
itaximum allowable rod drop times.
c.
Maximum allowable bridge speed.
d.
Minimum allowable reactor pool level.
e.
Transient rod operating cylinder inspection and maintenance.
f.
Fuel element measurements of elongation and bowing.
Confirmation of reactor pulse characteristics.
349 i I)9
'
-3-
.
'
.
,
The records which were used to substantiate the completion of these requirements were the "Research Reactor Monthly Inspection Checklist" for April,1978 - April,1979, the " Daily Startup Checklist" for March - April,1979, and the " Fuel Element History File" for 1978.
Based on this review, the surveillance orogram was being implemented.
It was noted that in uany instances the licensee performed surveillance more frequently than the Technical Specifications required.
fla items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
7.
Experiments Experiments performed since the previous inspection were reviewed.
Procedures for new experiments (flos. E 343-B through E 336-A) were examined with the following findings made by the inspector.
The procedures had been reviewed and approved as required for a.
" Class A" or " Class B" e::periments.
b.
The experiments did not involve an unreviewed safety question.
c.
Potential hazards with the experiment were clearly identified.
d.
The approximate reactivity effect on the reactor was predicted beforehand.
fio items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
8.
Independent Inspection The inspectors conducted a tour of selected areas of the reactor roo;n.
The following observations were made:
Control room operators were knowledgeable of plant operating a.
conditions and oi experiments in progress.
The control room was manned in accordance with the Technical Specifications.
b.
Plant housekeeping was adequate.
Plant equipment and systems appeared normal for the status c.
of the plant.
tio items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
9.
Exit Interview The inspectors met with licensee representatives (denoted in Para-graph 1) at the conclusion of the inspection on April 25, 1979.
The inspectors summarized the scope and findings of the inspection.
M9 200