IR 05000264/1975001
Text
'
..
.-
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
REGION III
Report of Operations Inspection IE Inspection Report No. 050-264/75-01 Licensee:
The Dow Chemical Company 1701 Building Midland, Michigan 48640 TRIGA Reactor License No. R-108 Midland, Michigan Category:
F Type of Licensee:
100 Kw TRIGA (Non Pulsing)
Type of Inspection:
Routine, Unannounced Dates of Inspection:
September 22-24, 1975
//
r[.w
',.$ (
Principal Inspector:
C. Brown a
(Date)
Accompanying Inspectors: None Other Accompanying Personnel:
L. Constable (IE:HQ)
]
eb~
/ //
7.'&[Littll.n.
8/ /d M
S.
Reviewed By:
Senior Reactor Inspector (Date)
Nuclear Support Section Reactor Operations Branch
8508280003 850712-PDR FOIA a
PDR u
KOHN05-256
[
.
.
-
,
,
.
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Inspectiori Summary The inspection on September 22-24, (75-01): Reviewed reactor operations since last inspection, maintenance since last inspec-tion, implementation of modified operator requalification program, and corrective action on noncompliance Item 73-01.
Enforcement Items None.
Licensee Action on Previously Identified Enforcement Items Enforcement item, report 73-01, (procedure change, improper review)
licensee had placed procedure review in the operator requalification program and annual review of administrative procedures by the Reactor Operators Committee is now required.
Other Significant Items A.
Systems and Components None.
B.
Facility Items (P,'ans and Procedures)
None.
C.
Managerial Items None.
D.
Noncompliance Identified and Corrected by Licensee None.
E.
Deviations-None.
F.
Status of Previously Reported Unresolved Items None reported.
-2-
!
L
.--
_
_
.
--
-
_. _ - - _
..
-
.
.
,
.
'
Management Interview Following the inspection, a meeting was held on September 24,
with Drs. R. Kolat, (Laboratory Director) and A. Anders (Reactor Supervisor). The following items were discussed.:
A.
The inspector inquired into who were officially members of the Reactor Operations Committee, as the list in the training /
procedure volume was the original committee and many of the members had changed since that time. The license stated that the Committee minutes. listed the members for each meeting, but may not list members that were not in attendance. The licensee agreed to review this area and set up a standard to follow in the future.
B.
- The inspector pointed out that the procedure (Paragraph 3.2.2, Step 8) for the Reactor Operations Committee allowed telephone polling of members fora modification review if it was necessary, but that the telephone review needed to be documented in a similar manner as the normal reviews. The licensee agreed and stated that appropriate action would be taken.
(Report Details, Paragraph 9)
C.
During a discussion about the inspector's observations on current practices of preventative radioactivity control,- the licensee agreed to review current practices and upgrade as necessary and to add a caution note to activition forms for experiments with expected high activity to take more stringent precautions.
D.
The inspector stated that to meet the intent of the Technical Specifications, that a SRO be present for maintenance on safety related equipment, the saintenance log entry should be initialed by the SRO* as was formally the case. The license agreed. The inspector also stated that two entries in the scram log were not complete per instructions in scram log, i.e.,
the initials of the responsible operator were missing. The licensee agreed and stated the omission would be corrected.
- All operators at the facility are SRO's-3-L i
.
_
_
___
_
. _ _
___
_
__
-m
.
.
.
.
REPORT DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted R. A. Olson, Health Physicist
,
T. J. Quinn, Reactor Operator O. Q. Ander, Reactor Supervisor R. Kolat, Laboratory Director I. Takahishi, Research Specialist 2.
General Information The reactor continues to be operated as before, mainly used for sample activition. Sixteen unplanned scrams occurred since September 1973 with 8 contributed to operator error. The six licensed operators are presently participating in the requalif-ication program.
3.
Personnel Changes Dr. Turley has baan transferred to a new position and has been replaced by.Dr. Kolat.
Dr. Rolat formally replaced Dr. Turley as chairman of the Reactor Operations Committee in the March 1974 meeting of committee.
4.
Records Reviewed The following records were reviewed during this inspection and specific comments were made in the appropriate section of the report.
a.
Reactor Operations Committee Minutes, October 11, 1973
- present.
b.
Scram Log, October 1973 - present.
c.
Reactor Operating Log, January 1975 - present
!
d.
Radiological Control Reports, January 1975 - present.
e.
Daily Checklist, September 21, 1973 - February 5',
1974 and Spot Check April 1974 - present.
'
f.
Weekly Checklist, same as daily.
g.
Monthly, Checklist, September 1973 - present
,
h.
Semiannual Check, October 1973 - April 1975.
!
i.
Annual Checklist, March 1974 - March 1975.
-4-i I
,_
_.. - -.
_-, _.,
_ __,_.-..-.
.
,,. _.. _ _ _ _.. _., _
.. _., _
.
_
,,
_
. - _ -
.,
';
.
j.
Experimental Control Records' Spot Check, October 1973 -
present, k.
Maintenance Log, October 1973 - present.
The above logs and checklists include the records required by paragraph 3.c of the facility license.
5.
Irradiation Records Selected Reactor Activiation Request Forms were cross-checked with the reactor operation log and daily checklist and found to conform to the licensee's procedures and facility license paragraph 3.c.
The majority of the irradiation were performed in the rotating sample holder, with the pneumatic transfer system used on a relatively infrequent basis.
The requirements for Section J of the Technical Specification were found to have been met.
6.
Surveillance and Calibration All instrument calibration surveillance and interlock verification required by the Technical Specifications paragraphs F.5 through F.8, F.11 and F.12 were noted to have performed on at least the minimum frequency, as documented by the checklists.
Technical Specifications paragraphs E.4 (fuel element inspection)
and F.2 (control element inspection) performance was documented in the Annual Checklist and the Reactor Operating Log. The licensee stated that the evaluation of the inspection has revealed essentially no changes in the condition of the fuel elements and control elements.
The requirements of Technical Specification Section D (Reactor Pool Temperature and Conductivity) were noted to have been met.
Demineralized water makeup to the pool has remained constant as compared to historical data.
Technical Specification Section G (Radiation Monitoring)
requirements were met as per the Checklists and Reactor Operation Log.
7.
Core Reactivity The core reactivity limits, Technical Specification paragraphs E.3, F.3 and.4 were found to have been adhered to during the period inspected. The random orientation of the fuel element in its core position (cylindrical elements) after the fuel element inspection continues to produce small changes in core excess reactivity. Typical values are:
-5-
- - -.... -
.
- _.-
.-
-.
.
-
.
..- -
.. -.. -. - _ -. _.
.
.
.
Fuel Inspect Date Excess Reactivity 1973
$1.60 1974 1.45 1975 1.30 The above values are within the limit of $2.14 and the licensee expects to continue to observe the variation as the core had previously been used at higher power levels.-gj
!
The excess reactivity can increase depending upon how the fuel is positioned.
8.
-Maintenance The review of the maintenance performed revealed conformance with paragraph F.9 and.10 of the Technical Specifications.
The licensee was asked to include documentation of the SRO performing the maintenance, who authorized the maintenance, and if applicable, the Reactor Operations Committee meeting number, with dates, in the maintenance log. The licensee stated that this would be reviewed.
9.
Reactor Operations Committee Minutes The review of the Reactor Operations Committee Minutes indicated that the Committee was functioning essentially as stated in Section I of the Technical Specifications. -One modification to the nuclear instrumentation shown as completed in February 1975 per the maintenance log was not documented in the committee minutes as having been reviewed. A further review and discussion with the licensee indicated the review had been performed via the telephone with the vendor and then with other members of the Committee, but was not documented. The modification involved. disconnecting (a plug) the chamber from the " original" power supply and connecting it to a more reliable power supply,
,
i with the modification performed prior to the last inspection.
-The review had verified that the power supply was of sufficient capacity for the increased load, also in the original design, this power supply had supplied all the chambers.
10.
Training Records Training records for two licensed operators were revieyyd and found to conform with the modified retraining program.-
All 4 ~
licensee operators participate in presenting the lectures, then 1/ RO Inspection Rpt No. 050-264/73-01.
F
~~2/ Dow to DL ltrs dtd 5/4/74 and 7/2/74, Collins to Dow Ltr dtd 8/20/74.
- 6-J
.
0
-
- -,,...,,.
.
,,-.
,,-.<-...+w v.,
..--,
,r-3
.,-y%,,
-w-,
,. _
._.,,,m_,_y,m,,.,._~n_-
,,y--,
y
.,. _., - - _.., - -
,,-.,
,' _a
'
l
.
take the test given in all other areas on a yearly basis.
i The areas covered are rotated between operators each year.
The annual requalification program includes a procedure review which covers the administrative procedures.
-7-