IR 05000228/1982001

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
IE Insp Rept 50-228/82-01 on 820302.No Noncompliance Noted. Major Areas Inspected:Procedural Changes,Close Out of Items & Independent Insp
ML20049K208
Person / Time
Site: Aerotest
Issue date: 03/08/1982
From: Willet D, Thomas Young
NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V)
To:
Shared Package
ML20049K198 List:
References
50-228-82-01, 50-228-82-1, NUDOCS 8203290524
Download: ML20049K208 (3)


Text

/

, /-

(

^ -

'

"

" '

.:

'

,

.

s

,,

,

,

.

-

,

..

.

.

s e,

f,,

.

,

s

.

-

,

,

- -

5 t

S

"

.

wx

.

,

_-

-

,

,

m.

'-

-U.

S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0fNISSION

.

,

,

q og e

s

_

.

...

^

o

.

~.

,

.

-

+

s

,

,

,

'

'

"

'

- 6

'1 REGI0ft V ~

,

,

.,

'

'

e y.

g

,

Report No. 50-228/82-01

'e

.

,

,. _

-

/

'

,

a

-

.

q

,

'

e.

'

Docket ?!o. 50-296 s

d.icense'No.

R og.

Safeguards Group

^

'

y a

,,;

9 -

Licensee:, Aerotest Operatio"as. Inc.

,

c-e

-

s

='

.

-

'a

.

..

,

N55FostoriaWav

,[.;.

'

t'

<-

'

i

-

,

=

,

.

.

e

'

'

'

San ~Ramon: 6alifornia 94583

-

o

'

-

'.

f

'

i

.

..

.

Facility Name: "ARRR

'

-

.

,

-

,

,

.

,

,

a

-

.,

Inspection at:

San Ramon.' California

'

-

n

Inspection copducted:

' Mafch 2. 1987

?

-

-

'

'

'

-

u n

,

~

h

/ i' O i'//-

07-

X

[

'r Inspectors:

-

/

-

Date Signe,d

.,

D.J.Willett,'RegtorI

.

e r

.

.

,

-

.

-

.

'

s'

-

f,

'r

x,

,

,

.

-

.

,

.,Date Signed.

'

-

-

s

,

e

..

,

[.,

a, i

Approved by LP h

{

i '

L

-

.

.

'

,

-T. Young,Jr.,Opf,Reafar.

ject' Section 2 Date Signed

.

s Reactor =0perations Proje Br ch

-

>

-

,

-

'

'

s

-

.,

,

Summary:

,.'

{

,

,,

'

.

.

,

,

,

,

InsdectiononMarch2,1982(ReportNo. 50-228/82-01)

.

.

,,

-

.

.

.

,

Areas Inspected: Rout.ine,' unannounced safety inspection of procedural

'

'

changes; close out of open items and, independent inspection.

This inspection consisted of two regular inspector-hours by one NRC inspector.

Results : Of the three areas inspected, no items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.

.

Dohko!$$$,djg P.V Fom 219 (2)

f PDR

-.

- - -..

a

-

y

+.

-

~ --

-

-

.

.

m.

,

-

e

.,

.

.,

,

,

k,

'

  • *

..

,

,

,,

-

-

o e

,

x

_e

.

..

.

.

.

.

M, g

~*

g; t-

,,n~

.s

<

+

,

., -

- i

,

[-

'. DETAILS

'

'

-

-

-

.

.

t.

' e *,,

,','$

'

se t

-

.

.

...

,,

,

{

-

%^

-

...

,

,

,

,'

14 * Persons Contacted

"

  • '

3.-

.

.

.

.

,.

,

,

e

,

    • R.~Newacheck~, Preside 4nt "Acrotest 0 petitions

>

C

,*J. Haskins, R getor Sbp,ervisor,

-

  • I. Lamb, Manager, Quality, Assurance.

~

~,

,1

,

w-

.,

,

' * Denotes' those present at-the exit intervie'w. '

'

'

-

,

,

. -

e

,

,

,

'

Reactor # perations - General

,

.,s 2.

-

"

- ;

_

.

c

.

,

.

Thefacilitycontinuestob[for'attivationanalysis.iised grimarily for' neutro

' ',

.

.

I

.,

an4short term i' radiations There,have been

-

r

.-

,e s 'no unusual occurrences since'the previous 7 nsp'ection.

-

-

t

.

,

-

-

,,

.

.

v t

o The construction and modernization of the facility, as discussed-irt.the

.

...

previousreport(50-228/81-03), is nearly complete with some amount of

e

-,

,

cosmetic work yet to'he'done. The licensee's commitment to interlocking v

'

'

.

and anchor',ing together the shielli wall, along the top has been completed'

-

.

'

.-

(

'.:

.

.

e

,,

,

No items.of noncompliance or deviatioins were ident,ified.

, %;

",

"

....m

=

<

..

.

,

_

3.

Organizationland Procedures

-

.

,

-

..

The iice%se~es basic organization has not changed since,the previous',

. ' *

"

'

'

'

  1. '

,

a inspection with the following' exc' ption: Two of the four Senior Reactor.

e

.

~~0perator (SRO) litenses in effect at Aer'otest have expired. The 'lic"ensee'

'

.-

has, expressed concern that the NRC has not responded to requests.for

-

.

,

, renewals and,has placed them on, indefinite hold.

'

.t o

e

,

,

'

The inspector-examined tke' adrhin'istrative, maintenance, and emergenc[ 0'

!

' '

'

planning procedures and.fot/nd.them to b%substantially improved.

  1. .

. The'llcensee felt confiddht that' the new emphasis on preventative

,

' maintenance sbuld enable them to trend problems and set surveillance

,

%

  • intervals more effectively.

No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.

Independent Inspection

.

The inspector toured the facility and observed the construction and modifications to the facility.

Housekeeping is being improved as equipment and supplies are being moved into the new areas.

No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.

.

  • s

,

l

.

'"j.

~

'y

'

_.

.

,

,

,

,,

,

,

-

s

-

-

.

,

..

.3

,p

.

.

.

~

-

.,

.

..

j

,-

,-

,

e

,

,

,

,'

O

.

g

.

,_

,

,

o

.2, -

a

<

.

,

f-2

~

.

,,

...

/

e

.

-g

-

,

-,*

-

s., s a

,

s.

  • i O

,s'

.,.

.f

'

'

'

-

.-

s

.

,

,

I

, fr Exit Interview

^

a u

.

,

.,

e;

.The inspector met with the licensee representatives at the, conclusion

,

-

of the inspection on March 2,1982. Th.e scope'and> fin' dings of the.y _.,

'

-

-

_

t -

inspection were discussed and summarizsd as set forth in Paragraph,s 2'.

f - y

"

through 4.

'-

"

"

=

.

{.",f

>

' ~'

g e-

+

.

_

a

.

_

.

..

.

Oo&

' * -

-

-

.

,

.

.,

-

,.a

%,

Y T Gt p

'

/g g

  • .

,

>

!

e o

..

e

...,

,

,

_ \\

.

>

.

.

,

-

.

,

..

.

.

g'V

, y

  • .

-e

k t

,

i

.s

.

p-

,

.g

..

.

-

g

.

,

+

.

<

..

.

,..

  • .

I

's

.

b

- *

O S

,

,

-

.j *p

s

,.

,

~

-

.

'

J

.

,

,

g4

-

'

'

,'

u

=

"

.';

-

-

,

,

s t

.

, *

  • -

-

.~

.

'

,

.

$

- 4

.

,

-

,

.

"

'*

a'

-,

.,

,g

-

,

,r

'

,

g

^

,. # 7 Q

,e

,

t-

%

-

-

.,

.. '

r

.

.

.

y

' 8l

,

e

\\