IR 05000224/1982001
| ML20040H354 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Berkeley Research Reactor |
| Issue date: | 01/28/1982 |
| From: | Stewart J, Willett D, Zwetzig G NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20040H350 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-224-82-01, 50-224-82-1, NUDOCS 8202180145 | |
| Download: ML20040H354 (5) | |
Text
.
.
.
_
_-
.
b
,
.
.
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
REGION V
Report No. 50-224/82-01 Docket No. 50-224 License No.
R-101 Safeguards Group
,
Licensee: University of California Berkeley, California 94720'
Facility Name: Berkeley Research Reactor (TRIGA Mark III)
Inspection at: Berkeley, California Inspection conducted: January 7-8, 1982 Inspectors:
- wi MYIC 744 2 8' /9PZ 4.-J.WilleK,ReactorInspector
/ Date Sig6ed Il !L'G 00m 25, /VS'T
-
P. Stewart, Reactor Inspector
/[ Date Signed Oh 0444. 2 e /9ex Approved by:
Reactor Project (/
Date Signed G. Pfdh, CnQf,, Operations Projects Section 1, Reactor Summary:
Inspection on January 7-8, 1982 (Report No. 50-224/82-01)
f Areas Inspected:
Routine, unannounced inspection of facility organization,
)l logs and records; requalification training; procedures; surveillances; review and audit; experiments; and independent inspection. The inspection involved 17 inspector-hours onsite by two NRC inspectors.
Results of the 8 areas inspected: No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
-
'
,
d Ochokhh$j24
'
'
--
-
.
.
-
--
'
.
.
.
.
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
- Denotes those attending the exit interview.
2.
Organization, Logs ~and Records The organization structure and personnel responsible for the operation and administration of the Berkeley Research Reactor were unchanged from that previously reported.
Through discussions with licensee representatives and an examination of facility records, the inspector found that the qualification levels of licensee personnel, including members'of the Reactor Hazards-Committee, were consistent 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:
,
-
. m s.
a.
Maintenance Log.
-
t b.
Operations Log Books.
c.
Daily Reactor Startup and Shutdown: Checklist.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
3.
Review and Audit The licensee's review and audit activities since the last inspection were reviewed by the inspectors. This examination included dicussions with licensee management and a review of the following:
a.
Reactor Hazards Committee (RHC) minutes.
b.
Annual Report.
c.
Reactor Hazards Committee Audits, d.
Reactor Supervisor Audit !
.
.
.
_2_
e.
Technical Specifications.
f.
RHC Bylaws.
"
Changes to the facility design and to facility procedures were
'
found to have been completed consistent with the criteria of
,
s
, 10 CFR 50,59.
The inspector expressed the concern that the surveillance program
.
.was not currently one of the RHC's areas of audit and that there are no formal criteria for the RHC outlining:
a.
Th'e RHC's responsibilities and authority.
r'
b.
The subject areas to be audited and the associated schedule, c.
Criteria by which audits are conducted.
d.
Resolution of audit findings.
The licensee committed to amend the RHC Bylaws to include the surveillance program as a RHC audit area and to address the RHC audit function in greater detail.
4.
Experiments The inspector examined selected irradiation requests and experiment procedures. The inspector verified by review of records and discussion with facility personnel.that the experiments were reviewed and approved by the Reactor Hazards Committee as required.
Limits on shutdown margin, excess reactivity, and individual / total worth of experiments were not exceeded. No new experiments-have been approved.
i
'
.
.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were11dentified.
5.
Operator Requalification Procram
.
The licensee's operator requalification, program was reviewed against the requirements of 10 CFR 55 and the approved operator requalification program.
The inspector reviewed the training files for each reacto'r. operator and verified that the licensee had implemented the requalification
,
, program for licensed operators, The files contained records of examinations, reactivity manipulations, evaluations, and other activities as described in the requalification program.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified, s
+
-.
'.
-
_ _ _ _
_., y
, _
,,
,
_.
j_t s
e
%
l @;.,,
't s.
,
D. ;
-
( 4 j,W j 4',
'
f^ ) ll f ' '
'
\\\\
'
.;
~
^
-
?!v 3~3
.c
,
,' vi A,
- -3-
., w; l s
,
,m 1.
^l
e
.7
.."
n '6-i. Reactor Operational' Procedures
.
i
.
.
.
<..
.
.,h.
';The inspection included an examination of the licensee's operating 1/ procedures for technical adequacy and for compliance with regulatory-requirements.
Procedures reviewed were those associated with'
reactor,startup and steady state operation, reactor shutdown, and conduct of experiments. Except as noted below, ~ a walk-through' of selected procedure check lists verified that they would accomplish their intended purposes. The exception relates to Nuclear Engineering,
. Reactor Laboratory Procedure No.16 (NERL-16)
" Generalized Procedure.
for Fuel Loading / Unloading and Control Rod Removal or Replacement,"
which does not appear to meet the intent of Technical Specifications Sectior. 6.5.
This is because the procedure addresses only the.
criticality aspects of fuel loading / unloading and control rod removal /
replacement and does not provide specific information on:
(1) Approval of maintenance (authorizations).
(2) Limits and precautions (criticality considerations).
(3) References (including vendor manual).
(4) Equipment necessary (including test equipment).
.(5) Step by step detailed instructions.
(6) Acceptance criteria (wear, tolerences, etc).
'(7) RHC review and approval of the procedure.
'
The licensee has committed to a review of his procedures and to
[
incorporate those applicable sections of the vendor manual. into I:
expanded and more detailed individual. procedures by October 1, 1982. Additionally, the licensee inforned the inspector of his intent to place all facility documentation on a review cycle.
!-
7.
Surveillance The inspector examined selected surveillance activities and records to verify completion as required by technical specifications, and to determine if facility operation was consistent with limiting conditions.
for. operation.
,
s
'
w
,
b f
M'
mm
- __._..
-. _ _ _ _ _ _.. _. _ _.. - - - - -
.
..
,
A
_4_
The inspector reviewed selected tests and inspections that are part of the surveillance program and expressed the concern that they did not:
a.
Provide detailed instructions for performance of the surveillance, b.
Provide acceptance criteria (tolerances).
The inspectors concern was based on.the fact that in the absence of the above items, no base-line data are available for problem trending (detection of equipment degradation).
Because acceptance criteria and a detailed method for performing the activity assure a uniform method for documenting as-found conditions, the licensee has committed to upgrade his surveillance program to incorporate the above items a. and
~
b. by October 1,1982.
No items of noncompliance or deviations'were identified.
8.
Independent Inspection The. inspector walked through'out areas of the facility to inspect the general ~ state of housekeeping and to check that monitoring instrumentation was reading or recording as necessary.
No unusual fluid leaks or piping
~
vibrations.werexobserved.
No items of noncom'pliance or deviations were observed.
~$1tilnterview
^
E 9.-
The inspector met with'licens_ee representatives (denoted in Paragraph 1) at the conclusion of the inspection on January 8,1982.
The scope and findings of the. inspection were discussed and summarized as set forth in Paragraphs 2 through 8.