IR 05000288/1981001
| ML20039F392 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Reed College |
| Issue date: | 12/11/1981 |
| From: | Willett D, Thomas Young NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20039F379 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-288-81-01, 50-288-81-1, NUDOCS 8201120410 | |
| Download: ML20039F392 (5) | |
Text
.
k
.
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
REGION V
Report No.
50-288/81-01 Docket No.
50-288 License No.
R-112 Safeguards Group Licensee:
Reed College Portland, Oregon 97202 Facility Name:
Research Reactor (TRIGA MKI)
Inspection at:
Portland, Oregon Inspection conducted:
November 16-16, 1981 Inspectors:
ed by
/2 -//- P/
[ D. J. Willett/ Reactor Inspector Date Signed Date Signed Approved by:
L hN
/1- //-Y I T. Young, Jrf, Chief, R$ actor Project Section 2, Date Signed Reactor Operations Projects Branch Sunnary:
Inspection on November 16-18,1981 (Report No. 50-288/81-01)
Areas Inspected:
Routine, unannounced inspection of organization, logs and records; review and audit; requalification training; procedures; surveillance; experiments; and miscellaneous, independent inspection effort, including observation of selected aspects of facility operation. This inspection involved 21 regular inspector-hours by one NRC inspector.
Results: Of the eight areas inspected, no items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
%[ Nock 000 RV Form 219(2)
.
- - - - - -
. - -
.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _, _, _
_
per
- D. Richardson, Reactor P. Shaffer, Reactor Operator ral other licensee The inspector also talked with and interviewed seve employees.
- Denotes persons attending exit interviev,.
ds
_ ganization, Logs and Recor ations Or 2.
iogs, and records pertaining to plant operThis examina-tor.
since September 1980 were examined by the inspection included l and a review of Organi za tion, selected portions of the following:
Control Room Loq Sheets Console Logs Startup Checklists Shutdown Checklists Rod Calibration Power Calibration Administrative Procedures Scram Log ificantly since the i
i The facility administration has not changed s gn Through discussions with licensee representat ves the qualification levels, last inspection.
ersonnel were found d
and an examination of facility recor s, authorities, and responsibilities o consistent with the technical specifica identified.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were Review and Audit September 1980 3.
i The licensee's review and audit activities s nceThis examination includ were examined by the inspector.
of the following records:
Reactor Operations Committee (ROC) Audit ReportsMinu nt Reactor Safety Committee minutes, Septenber
>
.
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted
- Dr. M. A. Kay, Facility Director
- G. L. Toombs, Reactor Safety Committee Member
- D. Richardson, Reactor Operator P. Shaffer, Reactor Operator The inspector also talked with and interviewed several other licensee employees.
- Denotes persons attending exit interview.
2.
Organization, Logs and Records Organization, logs, and records pertaining to plant operations since September 1980 were examined by the inspector. This examina-tion included discussions with facility personnel and a review of selected portions of the following:
Control Room Log Sheets Console Logs Startup Checklists Shutdawn Checklists Rod Calibration Power Calibration Administrative Procedures Scram Log The facility administration has not changed significantly since the last inspection. Through discussions with licensee representatives and an examination of facility records, the qualification levels, I
authorities, and responsibilities of licensee personnel were found consistent with the technical specification requirements.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
3.
Review and Audit The licensee's review and audit activities since September 1980 were examined by the inspector. This examination included a review of the following records:
Reactor Operations Committee (ROC) Audit Reports Minutes of ROC meetings, September 1980 to present Reactor Safety Committee minutes, September 1980 to present
_ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ ----- -
- - - - - _ _
--_----
_ _ _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -. - - - - - - - - - - - - -,
.
-2-
This examination included discussions with licensee management.
The inspector expressed the concern that the surveillance program was nct currently one of the ROC's areas of audit. The licensee has committed to amend ROC responsibilities to include the surveillance program as a ROC audit area. The licensee has also agreed to a more fonnal documentation of corrective action resolutions, after problems have been identified. The licensee has committed to generating a written charter outlining the duties and responsibilities of the ROC, consistent with administrative procedures, by March 1,1982.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
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 Operations Committee as required.
Limits on shutdown margin, excess reactivity, and individual / total worth of experiments were not exceeded.
No new experiments have been approved.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
5.
Operator Requalification Program The licensee's operator requalification program was reviewed against tne requirements of 10 CFR 55 and the approved operator requalification program.
The inspector reviewed the training files for each reactor operator and verified that the licensee had implemented the requalification program for licensed operators.
The files contained applicable records of examinations, reactivity manipulations, evaluations and other activities as described in the requalification program.
No deviations or items of noncompliance were identified.
6.
Reactor Operational Procedures '.
This inspection included an examination of the licensee's operating 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. A walk-through of selected procedure check lists verified that they would accomplish their intended purposes.
However, the inspector expressed the following concerns:
l
- -
_ _ - _ _ - _ - - - _ - -
~
.
.
.
-3-a.
Technical Specifications, Administrative procedures and operating procedures need to be brought into refined agreement.
b.
Administrative procedures, standard operating procedures (SOPS), surveillance and maintenance procedures need an index or definition of terms or clarification of such terms as startup, bi-monthly, and surveillance.
All required actions need to be stated as shall and not should.
c.
d.
No administrative procedure exists that addresses temporary or permanent procedure change and outlines reviews and approvals that are necessary.
Only updated and/or controlled copies of S0Ps and administrative, e.
energency, etc., procedures should be in the control room.
The licensee has canmitted to resolving the above concerns (a.
through e.) and, in addition, outlined to the inspector a new effort.for a review / reformatting program to encompass SOPS, administrative procedures, and maintenance and surveillance procedures. This new effort as outlined to the inspector will also include placing all facility documentation on a review cycle.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
7.
Surveillance The inspector examined selected surveillance activities and records to verify their completion as required by technical specifications; and that facility operation was consistent with limiting conditions for operation.
The inspector reviewed selected tests and inspections that are part of the surveillance program and expressed the concern that they did not provide:
a.
As-found conditions.
b.
Identify individuals who did inspection / test.
Provide acceptance criteria (tolerances).
c.
d.
Identify test equipment used.
e.
Provide detailed method for performance.
The lack of the above items, in surveillance procedures, do not supply base line data for problem trending (equipment degradation)
s
.
_4
.
and. calculation of surveillance intervals. Acceptance criteria and.
a detailed method for performing the activity assures a uniform method that has been approved and validates as-found conditions.
The licensee has committed to upgrade his surveillance program to'
incorporate the above items a. through e. by April 1, 1982.
~ No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
8.
Design Followup Through review of records and discussions with licensee personnel, the inspector reviewed:
the repair of the percent power meter; replacement of demineralizer resins; replacement of main console chart recorder; repair of main console range switch; and evaluation of the beam tube assembly structure and loading.
The inspector expressed the concern that past design review, approval and evaluation process did not encompass a broad enough scope to adequately fulfill all requirements.
The inspector noted that documentation for these modifications, such as beam tube track, guard rail around pool, as-built beam tube, has yet to be incorporated into appropriate facility records.
The licensee concurred with the inspector and indicated that the facility has been in the process of:
reviewing and confirming /re-evaluation facility modifications as necessary and reviewing facility records to complete and maintain the facilities documentation current.
The inspector noted that the new emphasis and meticulous attention placed upon maintaining the facility has set a higher standard which has greatly ' enhanced the efficiency and use of the facility.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
9.
Independent Inspection The inspector observed daily startup checks, training of student operators, and power mode operation. The inspector walked throughout 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 were observed.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were observed.
10.
Exit Interview The inspector met with licensee representatives (denoted in Paragraph 1)
at the conclusion of the inspection on November 18, 1981. The scope and findings of the inspection were discussed and summarized as set forth in Paragraphs 2 through 10.
.
-
-
-
-
- -