IR 05000284/1984001
| ML20140D976 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Idaho State University |
| Issue date: | 01/27/1986 |
| From: | Ireland R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20140D964 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-284-84-01, 50-284-84-1, NUDOCS 8602030156 | |
| Download: ML20140D976 (8) | |
Text
. .
APPENDIX U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION IV
NRC Inspection Report: 50-284/84-01 License: R-110 Docket: 50-284 Licensee: Idaho State University (ISU)
Pocatello, Idaho Facility Name: AGN-201 Reactor Inspection Conducted: May 21-22, and October 23, 1984 Inspectors: J. E. Hyder, Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory Safety Assessment Group R. E. Ireland, Chief, Engineering Section Approved: 8 [ d,,,/ //27/r7, R. E. Ireland,~ Chief, Ehgineering Section Date Inspection Summary Inspection Conducted May 21-22 and October 23, 1984 (Report 50-284/84-01)
Areas Inspected: Routine, unannounced inspections of records and logs, organization, requalification training, procedures, surveillance activities, experiments, fuel-handling activities, radiation control, radwaste management, emergency planning, physical security, nuclear materials management, and i
reactor operations. The inspection involved 12 inspector-hours onsite by one NRC contractor inspector and 8 inspector-hours by one NRC inspecto Results: No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified during this inspection.
I l
8602030156 860129 PDR ADOCK 05000284PDR G
- .. .-_ .- __ -
. .
-2-i DETAILS
.
I Persons Contacted
Idaho State University
- Dr. Albert E. Wilson, Reactor Administrator and Senior Reactor Operator (SR0)
+*Dr. V. Charyulu, Dean of the School of Engineering
- +*Mr. Terry W. Smith, Reactor Supervisor and SR0 i *Dr. Tal Neill, Member, Reactor Safety Committee, and Chairman, Radiation Safety Committee Dr. J. Price, Member, Reactor Safety Committee
+Mr. G. Ramsey, Reactor Supervisor designe '
Argonne National Laboratory - West
{
- Mr. Frank H. Just, Chairman, Reactor Safety Committee Mr. M. Vaughn, Member, Reactor Safety Committee ,
NRC Personnel
+ A. Cooley, Chief, Operator Licensing Section l
- * Indicates those present at the exit interview on May 22, 1984
+Iridicates those present at the exit interview on October 23, 1984 l
! General The initial inspection, which began at 8:30 a.m. on May 21, 1984, was conducted to examine the overall program at the Idaho State University AGN-201 reactor. The facility was toured shortly after arrival. The conditions of the facility were found to be acceptable. The followup inspection on October 23, 1984, included a tour and considered, in part, a review of the mcasures that would be taken in the event the facility were left without an SR0 in charge and the reactor had to be kept in a shutdown and secured status. At that time, the Reactor Administrator was on a
, temporary leave of absence at the Cooper Nuclear Station, and the Reactor
! Supervisor had accepted a position at the Los Alamos National Laboratory and planned to leave the University in November 1984.
!
l
[
i
\
l
_ _ _ - _ _-.
_ - _ .- . . _ - , .. . . _ - . - . . ,_ . - - _ - _ _ _ - , - -
. _ _ - _ __ . _ . _ _ - _ . - _ - __ __ _
. . .
-3-On October 23, 1984, Mr. R. Cooley, NRC Region IV administered a senior
. operator examination to Mr. G. Ramsey, a former Reactor Supervisor and SR0
.
at the facility, who had agreed to return after a 4-year absence to work l part time for Idaho State University in the position of Reactor Supervisor. It was confirmed that on October 29, 1984, Mr. Ramsey had
'
i
'
been relicensed as an SR0 and had reassumed the position of Reactor Supervisor. This reduced the concern about the status of the facilit '
!
.3. Reactor Operations The inspector observed a reactor startup and shutdown on October 23, 1984, during the administration of an operator examination. All systems
'
appeared to function normally during the time the reactor was in operation.
j No items of noncompliance or deviations were identifie . Organization, Logs, and Records
The facility organization was reviewed and verified to be consistent with
- the Technical Specifications. The minimum staffing requirements were verified to be present during reactor operation and during fuel handling operation The reactor logs and records were reviewed to verify that
- Required entries were made,
' significant problems or incidents were documented, the facility has been maintained properly, and 4 records were available for inspection.
! No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
$ 5. Reviews and Audits l Records of the licensee's review and audit programs were examined by the
'
inspector to verify the following: Reviews of facility changes, operating and maintenance procedures, design changes, and unreviewed experiments had been conducted by a
'
safety review committee as required by Technical 5pecification The rcview committee and/or subcommittees were composed of qualified
- members, and quorum and frequency of meeting requirements had been met.
.
l
- - - , - -
, , - - , . , . . - - - . . - - - , , . . , . , - , - , -,
-.---.,..--,.--q - - - - . . . -
.
. .
-4- Required safety audits had been conducted in accordance with Technical Specifications requirements. The licensee's audit conducted on October 17, 1983, and presented to the Reactor Safety Committee identified that the licensed SR0s had not taken written requalification exams since June 1982. (See paragraph 6.)
The NRC inspector and Mr. Cooley attended a meeting of the Reactor Safety Comittee on October 23, 1984. One of the principal topics was staffing of the facility and contingency planning for the possibility that the reactor would have to be secured temporarily. The committee approved the selection of Mr. Ramsey as Reactor Supervisor pending his examination result . Requalification Training The inspector reviewed procedures, logs, and training records and interviewed personnel to verify that the requalification training program was being carried out in conformance with the facility's approved plan and NRC regulation The two SR0s teach a two-semester, graduate-level Nuclear Engineering Course that appears to be adequate for requalification trainin Normally, the students in this course submit potential questions that are used by a member of the Reactor Safety Committee to generate a requalification exam. Both SR0s successfully completed written exams in June 1982 and in May 198 Formal written exams were not taken in 198 During the followup inspection on October 23, 1984, the requalification examination process was reviewed and discussed in detail with the Reactor Supervisor and with the Dean of the School of Engineering. After consultation with Mr. Cooley, the inspector concluded that while there was no record that a formal requalification examination had been administered during the academic year 1982-1983, it could be demonstrated that involvement of the SR0s in teaching, as described above, had provided them with adequate requalification trainin The licensee agreed that the Reactor Supervisor should assure that requalification examinations are scheduled on a timely basis without reliance on initiative of the Reactor Safety Committee or any attending audits. It was pointed out that requalification examination records should be kept current and that this would be followed up during a subsequent inspectio This is an open item (284/8401-01)
7. Procedures The inspector reviewed the licensee's procedures to determine if procedures were issued, reviewed, changed or updated, and approved in accordance with Technical Specifications requirement . .. . I-5-This review also verified that: The procedure content was adequate to safely operate, refuel, and maintain the facility; the responsibilities were clearly defined; and the required checklists and forms were use The inspector determined that the required procedures were available and that the contents of the procedures were adequate. The licensee currently has 16 standard reactor procedures (experiments / demonstrations) for class exercises. There are also four additional detailed reactor procedures for student research project No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified, 8. Surveillance Activities The inspector reviewed procedures, surveillance test schedules, and test records and discussed the surveillance program with responsible personnel to verify that: When necessary, procedures were available and adequate to perform the tests, tests were completed within the required time schedule, and test records were availabl No items of noncompliance or deviations were identifie . Experiments The inspector verified the following by reviewing experiment records and other reactor log Experiments were conducted using approved procedures and under approved reactor conditions, New experiments or changes in experiments were reviewed properly and approve The experiments did not involve any unreviewed safety question Experiments involving potential hazards or reactivity change were identified in the procedure . .. . . - . _ . _ - . -. _ _ . _ _ _ _ . .
. . .
-6-l Reactivity limits were not or could not have been exceeded during the experiment No items of noncompliance or deviations were identitied.
I 10. Fuel Handling Activities The only fuel handling activity at the ISU AGN-201 reactor is the-control rod removal for routine maintenance and rod drop time testing. (The
- control rods are positive reactivity.)
, This fuel handling program was reviewed by the inspector. The review included the verification of approved procedures for fuel handling and the
'
technical adequacy in the areas of radiation protection, criticality i; safety, Technical Specifications, and security plan requirements. The inspector determined by review of records and discussions with personnel i that fuel-handling operations and startup tests were carried out in a conformance to the licensee's procedurcc.
,
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identifie . Transportation (Fuel Shipping)
,
There has been no fuel shipmen . Radiation Control l The inspector reviewed records, interviewed personnel, and made
! observations to verify that radiation controls were being carried out in
- accordance with the license and NRC regulations. The areas covered were
f Posting and labeling of areas and radioactive materials.
!
, Control of irradiated sample Calibration of radiation-detection instrument Required periodic dose and contamination surveys.
, Exposure records of personnel.
! . Posted areas of the facility, Personnel trainin Independent survey No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
l
. _ _ . . _ . _ . _ _
a . .
-7-13. Radwaste Management The very limited radioactive waste generated by this reactor has been collected by the Radiation Safety Officer, combined with other campus-generated waste, and correctly packed and shipped to an approved disposal sit . Emergency Planning On September 14, 1982, the licensee submitted an Emergency Plan for review and approval by NRC. The licensee has been operating under this plan since September 1, 198 The inspector determined that commitments made in the plan concerning annual review and update, annual drills, procedures, training, emergency equipment, and testing of alarms had been fulfilled.
'
No items of noncompliance were identifie . Physical Security During the initial inspection on May 21-22, 1984, the inspector reviewed the implementation of the licensee's physical security program through visual examination, review of records, and discussions with facility personnel. The review indicated that the physical security plan was well implemented, that responsibilities and response requirements were clearly defined and understood, and that appropriate test procedures were being used. Each fall, the Campus Security personnel are instructed in their duties in regard to their responsibilities for the reactor are On October 23, 1984, the NRC inspector reviewed specific aspects of physical security in light of the possibility that the facility might have to be shutdown and secured in the absence of a Reactor Administrator and a Reactor Supervisor. Contingency plans for access control and handling and reporting of any emergencies had been developed but not formalized. These plans appeared acceptable. As noted in paragraph 2, the need to put the contingency plans into effect was eliminate No items of noncompliance or deviations were identifie . Nuclear Materials Safeguards The inspector reviewed the accountability procedures and practices, records, and materials status reports for the past 4 years. The procedures, practices, and records were found to be well organized, complete, and in conformance with regulatory requirements and were found to provide adequate nuclear materials accountability and securit , . . .
-8-Material status reports were found to be complete and accurate and were submitted within the regulatory time requirement No items of noncompliance or deviations were identifie '
17. Exit Interview The inspector met with licensee representatives at the conclusion of the inspection on May 22, 1984, and summarized the scope and findings of the ,
l inspectio At the conclusion of the inspection on October 23, 1984, the inspector met l with licensee representatives and discussed the results of the May 21-22, 1984, inspection and summarized the scope and findings of the followup inspectio i l
l
! ,
'
!
f
l
!
l i
i l l I
l
i 1
- _ _ . _ . . _ . _ . - _ . - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ . - , . _ _ . ._