IR 05000288/1986001
| ML20203D534 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Reed College |
| Issue date: | 07/11/1986 |
| From: | Cillis M, Morrill P, Yuhas G NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20203D530 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-288-86-01, 50-288-86-1, NUDOCS 8607210236 | |
| Download: ML20203D534 (8) | |
Text
, -. .. ~.
.
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
,
REGION V
,
Report No. 50-288/86-01 Docket No. 50-288 License No. R-112 Licensee: Reed College Portland, Oregon 97202 Facility Name: Reed Reactor Facility Inspection at: Reed College - Portland, Oregon Inspection Conducted: June'23-24, 986 Inspectors: P7 P. J./Morrill, Examiner 7!// [b Ddte ' Signed j
'
,
7 // [
M. Cillis, Radiation Specialist Date' Signed Approved by: b hh G. P. Y a , Chief
_
7//i/M Da'te' Signed j Faciliti Radiation Protection Section Summary:
Inspectior. on June 23-24, 1986 (Report No. 50-288/86-01)
Areas Inspected: Special unannounced. inspection by two regionally based NRC specialists to determine the progress made by the licensee in correcting the enforcement items identified in Region V Inspection Report No. 50-288/85-01 and to review the licensee's conduct of reactor operations, reactor operator training and qualifications, selected surveillances, Radiation Safety Committee (RSC) and Reactor Operation Committee (ROC) ' operations, and a tour of the facility. The following inspection procedures were performed: 92701, 92702, 40745, 41745, 61745, and 8374 .
Results: Of the four areas inspected, three apparent violations were identified: failure to use a senior operator to prepare and administer the annual requalification examination for reactor cperators (paragraph 3(b)),
improper assignment of an operations staff member to the Radiation Safety Committee (paragraph 5), and failure to perform control rod drop time testing
)
in the second half of 1985 (paragraph 4).
.
I l
l l 8607210236 86(r/16 l PDR ADOCK 00000288 '
O PDN
,
. .. . - .- - _. .-. . -. _. - -- . .
.
_
_
.
DETAILS 1) Persons Contacted
- Dr. M. Cronyn, Vice President Provost
- Dr. M. Kay, Director, Reed Reactor Facility (RRF)
J. Frewing, Chairman, Radiation Safety Committee (RSC)
C. Grant, Operator and Member, Reactor Operation Committee (ROC)
G. Toombs, Member, Radiation Safety Committee M. Parrott, Health Physicist, Reactor Operation Committee
- Denotes those individuals attending the exit interview on June 24, 198 ) Facility Operations Discussions were held with the Vice President Provost, Director of RRF, and RSC/ ROC members to determine the extent of reactor operations ;
performed since April 1985 and planned for in the futur The discussions disclosed the following information:
Reactor operations between the period of April 1985 and June 1986 were restricted solely to the performance of Technical Specification surveillances,. reactor operator requalifications, and the training and testing of four new operator *
The Emergency Plan (EP) and Emergency Plan Implementing Procedures (EPIP) were developed during the period April 1985 through February 198 Implementation of the EP was started upon completion of the
'
EPIP' *
The time between April.1986 and June 1986 was also devoted to the revision of operating ' procedures', administrative procedures, and development of new Technical' Specifications (TS). The new TS will be submitted to NRR for approval- once' they have been approved by the RSC/ ROC and the Vice President Provost'.
The remainder of the~ time spent between April 1985 and June 1986 was devoted to resolving the enforcement items and other concerns identified in Region V Inspection Report 50-288/85-0 The Vice President Provost informed the inspectors that the RRF is not expected to resume full operations until he is satisfied with the corrective actions taken to resolve all of the findings identified in Inspection Report 50-288/85-01. The Vice President expects that full operations of the RRF will not start before the fall semester of 198 No violations or deviations were identifie ) Operator Licenses and Re s alification Program
-
'
,
a) Status of Reactor Operator Licenses Prior to the current inspection the NRC staff discovered that a person with an operator's license which expired on April 2, 1985 did not realize that the license had expired until May 1986 (Docket N ).
In May 1986, while following-up a telephone request from the Director of RRF the NRC staff found that the individual's license had expired without renewal on April 2, 1985. This information was communicated to the Director of RRF and the individua During the current inspection effort the inspectors reviewed the status of remaining reactor operators' (RO's) and senior reactor operators' (SR0's) licenses. Based on the fact that the-person with an expired license had continued in the requalification program in 1985 and 1986 and had reportedly operated the controls after license expiration, a 100% audit of the operating log was conducte The inspector found that the individual with the expired license had apparently operated the controls once after his license had expired on May 5, 1985. At that time he was manipulating the controls as part of the requalification program under the supervision of the Director of RRF and a senior operato The inspectors verified the status of all active licenses at RRF with the Director and reviewed the associated R0s requalification program files. As of the date of this inspection there were seven valid SRO licenses and four R0 licenses. This is consistent with the NRC records as of June 10, 198 The Director documented this information on a list of " Licensed Operators as of 23 June 1986".
The inspector also observed that the Director had taken corrective action by sending a memo to.all reactor operators dated June 9, 1986
, which requested that each operator verify their records and complete
'
appropriate forms to renew their licenses in a timely manner. The Director stated that all personnel who failed to be active in the
'
requalification program would be suspended from operating the reactor facility until they were up to dat The inspectors verified that;special_ license conditions prescribed on the R0 licenses were being me A review of the operating logs indicated that the one individual with a "no solo" license had been accompanied by another individual'in the control room when operating the reactor. Based on discussions, the Director appeared aware of the license conditions imposed on the operators. The inspector (s)
also observed that the operators' log books recorded personnel required in facility as well as the SRO required by the Technical Specification No violations or deviations were identifie b) Requalification Program Review
_ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _
-
.
.
The NRC approved RRF Operator Requalification Program was examine The program was initially approved on March 12, 1974 and was last revised on November 27, 1980. The program is designed to meet the requirements as set forth in 10 CFR Part 50.54(i), " Condition of License" and 10 CFR Part 55, Appendix A, "Requalification Programs for Licensed Operators of Production and Utilization Facilities."
Reactor operator and senior reactor operator training records, reactor console logs, reactor operator licenses, and other documents related to this subject were reviewed. As described above the status of the operator's licenses and the conduct of the requalification program were also discussed with the Director. The inspectors observed that as of the date of the inspection only three SR0s had completed or made arrangements to complete the annual 1986 requalification testin The examination disclosed irregularities with the licensee's reactor operator requalification program which are described belo * The preparation and administration of the annual 1985 requalification examination did not follow the requalification progra The requalification program requires that "each reactor operator (RO) and senior reactor operator (SRO) will be required to take a requalification examination once every yea The Director will select a qualified SR0 to write and administer the Exam. This SRO will be exempt from taking the exam."
For the 1985 requalification exam the Director selected a RO to write and administer the RO examination and an SRO to write and administer the SRO examination. Subsequently, the SRO selected to write and administer the SRO examination had difficulties writing the examination and required the Directors help to finish preparing the test. Consequently, since the Director and the selected SRO wrote the SRO examination neither took the SR0 examination. The R0 assigned to prepare and administer the R0 exam did not take the RO examinatio The requalification program requires that "Once every six months, a meeting of all R0s and SRos will be held to make them aware of recent changes in the Reed College Reactor Facility License, Facility design changes, recent abnormal occurrences, and changes in emergency procedures. It is. expected that each of the above will attend these semi-annual meetings."
' A meeting agenda dated October 3,1985 and attendance sheet documents an October 16, 1985 operators meeting dealing with emergency plans and dosimetry. All of the licensed operators attended this meeting. Meeting minutes dated January 7, 1986 document a combined meeting of operators, the Radiation Safety Committee (RSC), and the Reactor Operations Committee (ROC)
.
_ _
)
.
.
held on November 26, 1985 at which 67% of the licensed operators attende Meeting minutes dated April 21, 1986 and an agenda dated April 2, 1986 document another combined operators, RSC, and ROC meeting which occurred on April 15, 198 % of the licensed operators attended. At least two operators did not attend the last two R0/SRO semi-annual meetings. The Director explained that meeting minutes had been forwarded to the operators who did not attend. By questioning two operators the inspectors i
'
verified that operators were receiving copies of these meeting minutes. The failure to conduct RO/SRO semi-annual meetings and the poor attendance at R0/SRO meetings held between November 1983 and January 1985 was identified during the previous incpection. This was brought to the licensee's attention in paragraph 4(a) of Inspection Report 50-288/85-01-0 The inspectors informed the Vice President Provost and RRF Director at the exit interview that using an RO to write and administer the RO examination was an apparent violation (86-01-01).
The inspectors also informed the licensee that selecting three individuals (two SR0s and one RO) to write and administer the annual requalification operators examination appears to undermine the effectiveness of the testin ) Surveillances The inspectors examined the RRF operating logs, maintenance logs; weekly, bi-monthly, semi-annual, and annual surveillance check sheets for the period January 1, 1985 through June 18, 1986 to verify that fuel element inspections, control rod inspections, control rod drop times, control rod calibrations, and power calibrations were completed in accordance with the Technical Specifications. These records and surveillances were discussed with the Director RR * The subject surveillances appear to have been conducted correctly and on schedule with the exception of the control rod drop time surveillances. This test is required semi-annually by the Technical Specifications. Based on the operating logs for the RRF the rod drop time testing was conducted on February 6, 1985 but was not conducted again until January 22, 1986. The Director of RRF was not aware of the semi-annual requirement and that this surveillance was not performe This apparent violation wac discussed with the Director during the inspection and with the Vice President Provost at the exit interview (86-01-02).
5) Committee Activities l
_ _ . _ . __ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _
.
.
The inspectors examined the Radiation Safety Committee (RSC) and Reactor Operations Committee (ROC) activities occurring since March 1985. The examination consisted of a review of meeting minutes, agendas, attendance sheets, discussion with the Director and RSC/ ROC members, and attendance by the NRC inspectors at a joint RSC/ ROC meeting held on the evening of June 23, 198 The inspectors observed that the last three RSC/ ROC meetings had been joint RSC/ ROC and operator meetings. The inspectors found that the chairman of the ROC had attended only 50% of the meetings since August 1985. The Director of RRF chaired the RSC/ ROC meeting conducted on June 23, 1986. One operator questioned did not realize that these were joint meetings, but, in any case, attended the meeting as a member of the RS In subsequent discussions with the Chairman of the RSC, he stated that the meetings will probably be separate in the future with the chairman taking a larger rol The inspector was told that the RSC had completed two audits (on Environmental Sampling and Swipe Counting) since the last inspectio However, during the current examination the Director was unable to find copies of these audits. The Director did present an audit plan for the next year to the RSC at the RSC/ ROC meeting on the evening of June 24, 198 The inspectors were informed that one of the members of the RSC had also been an operator (Docket No. 55-2959) for approximately the last ten years. This is contrary to the Technical Specifications which requires that "Its membership shall consist of faculty members and individuals from outside organizations not connected with operation of the reactor facility." The licensee's staff was unaware of this requirement. This is an apparent violation (86-01-03).
These observations were' discussed with the Director during the inspection and with the Vice President Provost at the exit intervie ) Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings (a)- (Closed) Enforcement (50-288/85-01-07). This item concerned the licensee's failure to post the documents prescribed in 10 CTR Part 19.11, " Posting of Notices to Workers".
The licensee's corrective actions with respect to this item was examined and was found to be satisfactor This matter is closed (85-01-07).
(b) (0 pen) Followup (50-288/85-01-02). This item identified a list of anomalies associated with the maintenance of the following records:
Console Log
Environmental Log
Startup Check List
Shutdown Checklists
_
,
,
' '
, 6-i l
l
Procedure Change Notices l
Reactor Operator's Records )
'
Weekly, Monthly,.Bi-Monthly, Semi-Annual and Annual Checklists
'
Health Physics Survey Records
~'
Operator Requalification Program Training Records
'-
Maintenance Log Selected records identified above were examined by the inspectors to
' determine what improvements were made to correct the items identified in the inspection report. The examination disclosed the following:
'
Checklists used for performing weekly, bi-monthly, semi-annual, and annual had been revised. The revisions did not address all !
'
of the concerns related to the use of check lists that were identified in inspection. report 50-288/85-0 *
Checklists are still not being reviewed by the reactor supervisor or Director of RRF in a timely manner. For example; the 1986 semi-annual environmental monitoring surveillances were completed on April 19, 1986; however, the supervisors and [
'
Directors review of the checklist were incomplete at the time of this inspection. The cemi-annual check list used for July-December 1985 surveillances was incomplete. A timely review of this check list could have prevented the missed surveillance discussed in paragraph 4. The~second half 1985 i semi-annual control rod calibration were not performed. This also would have been noted if a timely review had bee conducted. This check list indicated that the second half 1985 semi-annual environmental ..mples were not take '
A review of the environmental log book indicated that samples taken in June 1985 and January 1986 were not analyzed until April 19, 1986. The Director of RRF indicated it may take one to four weeks to prepare the samples for analysis. The Director was unable to explain the reason for the long delays ,
associated with the analysis proces The above obaervations were discussed with the Vice President Provost and Director of RRF at the exit interview. The inspectors ,
expressed concern with the progress that was made in resolving the_ <
concerns identified in the inspection report y ;
The Vice President Provost informed the inspe'etors that he expects the Director of RRF to resolve each and every concern identified !
during this and the previous NRC inspections before he wi11' provide his approval for resuming full operation of'the reactor facilit This item remains open (85-01-02).
7) Tour 1 The inspectors conducted a tour of the Reed reactor facilit ,
i
,
n-
.
During the tour the inspectors noted that the licensee's posting and labeling practices were consistent with 10 CFR Part 19.11 and 10 CFR Part 20.203, " Caution Signs, Labels, Signals, and Controls". The inspectors noted that the facility was exceptionally clean and that portable radiation survey inst ruments were in current calibratio No violations or deviations were identifie ) Exit Interview The inspectors met with the licensee's representatives (denoted in paragraph 1) at the conclusion of the inspection on June 24, 1986. The inspectors summarized the scope and findings of the inspection. The licensee was informed of the violations in paragraph 3(b), 4, and The inspectors expressed concern with the progress made between April 1985 and June 1986 in resolving the findings brought to the licensee's attention in April 1985 and at the post exit meeting of May 21, 198 The inspector expressed concern with the licensee's apparent inattention to detail in the implementation of the Technical Specifications and the reactor operators requalification progra The inspectors also expressed concern about the RSC organization, the poor attendance at reactor operator and committee meetings, and the manner in which the RSC/ ROC meetings were being conducte The Vice President Provost stated that in the future, no operation of the reactor would be allowed for personnel without a current license even if they had submitted all the required paperwork more than thirty days prior to license expiration. The Vice President also stated that he was generally aware of the effort to upgrade the Technical Specifications and Administrative procedures and would review the resources required when the Director submitted his estimate of the resources needed to administer the upgrades.
[