IR 05000288/1987001
| ML20215K276 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Reed College |
| Issue date: | 04/24/1987 |
| From: | Cillis M, Yuhas G NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20215K258 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-288-87-01, 50-288-87-1, GL-86-11, NUDOCS 8705110135 | |
| Download: ML20215K276 (12) | |
Text
,.
..
-
-
.
.
.
.
..
..
.
.
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMISSION
REGION V
,
Report No. 50-288/87-01
,
Docket No. 50-288 License No. R-98 Licensee: Reed College Portland, Oregon 97202
,
Facility Name:
ReedReactorFacility(Rh.F)
Inspection at:
Portland, Oregon - Reed College Inspection Conducted:
April 1-3,1987 Inspectors:
h bd 4/zz/9 7 M. Cillis, Senior Radiation Specialist Date Signed Approved by:
b.h. Oh Y/24127
.Facilitie(r Radiological Protection Section G. P..Yu as} Chief Date Signed Summary:
Inspection on April 1-3, 1987 (Report No. 50-288/87-01)
Areas Inspected:
Routine unannounced inspection by a regionally based inspector of the reactor operations program; including organization, audits and reviews, experiments, health physics functions, environmental monitoring program, emergency preparedness program, procedures, reactor operator-requalification program, transfer and shipment of radioactive material, a tour
-
of the facility and open items consisting of Information Notice evaluations,
-
enforcement items, followup items and Licensee Event Reports (LER).
,
Inspection Procedures 30703, 39745,-40745, 40750, 41745, 42745, 61745, 69745, l
82745, 83743, 86740, 92700 and 92701 were addressed.
_
'
Results:
In the eleven areas examined, no violations or deviations were identified.
!'
,
!
l 8705110135 870424
{DR ADOCK 05000288
,
!
..,
_ _...,..
,.
,
....
.
.
. _ _. -,. _... ~. _ _
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted
- Dr. M. Cronyn, Vice President Provost
- M. Pollock, Acting Director, Reed Reactor Facility M. Parrot, Consulting Reactor Health Physicist D. Griffin, Chairman, Reactor Operations Committee
- H. B. Boland, Reactor Supervisor, Senior Reactor Opi.~ator P. N. Terdal, Reactor Operator
- Denotes those individuals attending the exit interview on April 3, 1987.
2.
Reactor Operations a)
Organization The licensee's organizational structure has remained unchanged since the last inspection.
Personnel changes observed since the previous inspection were as follows:
A new Acting Reactor Director (ARD) had been appointed.
- A new Reactor Supervisor had been appointed.
A new consulting Health Physicist had been appointed.
- New Reactor Operations Committee and Radiation Safety Committee Chairmen were selected.
The Vice-President Provost informed the inspector that Dr. Lawrence Ruby from UC Berkeley would become the permanent Reed Reactor Facility Director in September 1987.
The Vice President added that the ARD would be retained for approximately six months or longer after Dr. Ruby assumes responsibility as the RRF Director.
The inspector was informed that the assignment of the new Reactor Director's and Reactor Supervisor's positions' were deemed necessary because of the licensee's poor performance that was identified in Region V Inspection Reports 50-288/85-01 and 50-288/86-01.
The administration of reactor cperatfund was examined.
The examination disclosed that major progress had been made in resolving the enforcement items and other findings identified in the above inspection reports (see paragraph 8, herein).
No violations or deviations were identifie.
'
b)
Logs and Records,
,
The inspector examined the following facility logs and operational records for the period of 1986 through March 1987:
Console logs Environmental logs Startup and shutdown check lists Reactor operator logs
Weekly, bimonthly, semiannual and annual surveillance check lists Health physics survey records
Maintenance logs Operator requalification program training records General Employee and Emergency Preparedness Training program records
Reactor Operations Committee (ROC) and Radiation Safety Committee (RSC) meeting minutes Audit reports The inspector observed some minor deficiencies with the maintenance of and the supervisory reviews of surveillance check lists.
These items were discussed with the ARD and Reactor Supervisor.
Overall; the inspector concluded that significant improvements had been made to resolve the concerns with the maintenance of records that were identified in Region V Inspection Reports 50-288/85-01 and 50-288/86-01.
No violations or deviations were identified.
c)
Experiments The licensee's experiment program has remained unchanged over the past several years.
Experiments performed have consisted of activation analyses in support of various research projects and classroom laboratory work.
Nn new ev.periments had been perfer.T.ed since the previous inspection.
No violations or deviations were identified.
d)
Surveillances The inspector verified that surveillances prescribed in the Technical Specifications (TS) were performed at the required
.
frequencies.
Surveillance records for the period 1986 through March 1987 were examined.
Data related to the following surveillances were reviewed:
Pool water analysis for conductivity
Pool water temperature monitoring
Fuel element inspections Control element inspections Control element drop times
Operational checks of reactor instrumentation channels and safety circuits listed in Table I and II of the TS
Ventilation system functional checks Calibration and functional checks of radiation monitoring equipment identified in Section G of the TS-Other surveillances established by the licensee's Standard Operating Procedures (50P)
Discussions held with the ARD and a review of S0P 42, " Control Rod Drop Times" disclosed that the licensee uses a stop watch to verify control element drop times are less than the one second limit prescribed in the T.S.. The inspector raised questions as to the accuracy of using a "stop watch".
The ARD informed the inspector that he and the Reactor Operations Committee and Radiation Safety Committee raised the same questions. The ARD added that he is in the process of taking steps to establish an alternative method for performing the surveillance test.
The alternative method is expected to provide means for obtaining more precise measurements.
The inspector commended the ARD and the two committee's for their concern to improve this surveillance test.
The review disclosed that the maintenance of surveillanc'a records had improved considerably over what was observed from tM previous two inspections. The inspector did note some areas of the surveillance program needing additional improvement.
These areas were discussed with the licensee's staff and were brought to the licensee's attention during the exit interview.
No violations or deviations were identified.
e)
Procedures The inspection included an examination of the licensee's Standard Operating Procedures (SOPS) for compliance with Section I.5 of the Technical Specifications.
Discussions with the ARD revealed that a program has been established to review and as necessary to upgrade all of the 50P's.
The upgrades include the licensee's Administrative Procedure identified in the Safety Analysis Report.
Approximately 20% of the 50P's had been revised to date.
The licensee's staff has improved the format for the preparation of procedures.
The improvemer.ts include the procedure objectives, references, frequencies, equipment
-
.
section, acceptance criteria, documentation requirements and an instruc'..on section.
The ARO i.iformed the inspector that he plans to establish a schedule for performing periodic reviews of 50P's on a routine basis.
The inspector emphasized the importance of periodic reviews of SOP's at the exit interview.
The inspector commended the licensee's staff for their actions.
No violations or deviations were identified.
f)
Requalification Training The inspector reviewed the reactor operators logs and training files for each reactor operator and verified that the licenses was maintaining the requalification program for senior reactor operators (SRO) and reactor operators (RO) in accordance with the licensee's NRC approved program of November 1980.
The program is designed to meet the requirements prescribed in 10 CFR 50.54(i), " Conditions of License" and 10 CFR Part 55, Appendix A, "Requalification Programs for Licensed Operators of Production and Utilization Facilities."
The ARD and four current R0's and several other reactor operator trainees were preparing to take the NRC examination for R0's and SRO's which is scheduled to be given in May 1987.
The review disclosed that records of examinations, reactivity manipulations, R0/SR0 evaluations and other activities associated with the program were consistent with the NRC approved requalification program.
t The ARD informed the inspector that all reactor operations performed since September 1986 had been conducted directly under his supervision.
No violations or deviations were identified.
g)
Changes A review of reactor operating records and discussions with the ARD disclosed that no changes to tests, equipment or the facility were made since the previous inspection.
No violations or deviations were identified.
h)
Review and Audit The licensee's review and audit activities conducted since January 1986 were ev.amined by the inspector.
The examination disclosed that the enforcement item identified in Inspection Report 50-288/86-01 (see paragraph 8) had been satisfactorily resolved.
The inspector also verified that other
.
>
concerns related to Reactor Operations Committee and Radiation Safety Committee activities that were identified in Inspection Reports 50-288/85-01 and 50-288/86-01 had improved significantly.
The inspector concluded that the licensee's audit and review
/
activities were consistent with Sections I(2) and I(3) of the '
Technical Specifications.
No violations or deviations were identified.
3.
Radiation Protection a)
Liquid and Solid Wastes No liquid or solid wastes were generated from RRF activities since the previous inspection.
No violations or deviations were identified.
b)
Posting The inspector verified that the licensee's posting practices are consistent with 10 CFR Part 19.11, " Posting of Notices to Workers".
No violations or deviations were identified.
!
c)
Personnel Monitoring
-
The licensee's program for assuring compliance with 10 CFR Part 20.202, " Personnel Monitoring" was found to be acceptable.
A review of personnel exposure records for 1985 to 1987 did not disclose any abnormal exposures.
No violations or deviations were identified.
d)
Radioactive Material Shipments and Receipts s
A review of radioactive materftl shipping and receiving records
indicated that activities ass @siated with the shipment and receipt of radioactive materials at tne RRF were consistent with 10 CFR Part 20, 10 CFR Part 71 and Department of Transportation regulations prescribed in 49 CFR Parts 172-178.
Transfers and/or shipments of radioactive materials are made through the licensee's State of Oregon license.
i No violaticris cr deviattunn were iueni,i fied.
e)
Surveys Standard Operating Procedure (S0P)-2, " Health Physics Wipe Tests" and the reactor startup and shutdown check lists designate specific locations at which contamination and radiation surveys are to be s
take..
I
<1
'
.
Selected contamination and radiation survey records for the period 1986 through March 1987 were reviewed.
No abnormal readings were sidentified.
.
The inspector informed the licensee's staff that to obtain i
contamination and radiation readings in the same exact predesignated locations may not be adequate to evaluate the extent of radiation hazard that may be present.
The inspector also noted that licensee procedures do not adequately address the need for performing special surveys.
For instance; for fuel element inspections, control element inspections, etc.
The inspector emphasized the importance of performing special surveys whenever appropriate and for assuring that the routine surveys.were representative of both reactor operations and 'of any special1 work activities.
The inspector added that the surveys should c7early evaluate the extent of the radiation hazard that may be present.
-
The licensee's staff acknowledged the inspectors concerns stating that appropriate changes will be made in their program and that personnel will be instructed accordingly.
The inspector verified that the surveys taken during the period of 1986 through March 1987 were adequate'for the activities that were performed.
No abnormal readings were reported.
No violations or deviations were identified.
f)
Effluent Monitoring The principal airborne radionuclide released from the facility is Argon (Ar)-41.
The licensee monitors airborne releases with a gaseous stack monitor.
Calibration of the monitor is performed with known quantities that are prepared in the reactor.
The alarm set points
.are based on the maximum permissible concentrations for Ar-41 prescribed in 10 CFR 20, Appendix B, Table II, Column l.
The licensee currently maintains records of releases by keeping
,
strip charts from the monitors output.
A review of'the strip charts for the period of 1984 through 1986 disclosed that the readings were barely above background levels.
The ARD informed the inspector that he was in the process of developing a method to quantify the activity released in microcuries per milliliters and total curies from the chart readings.
The matter of data reduction was discussed at the exit interview.
No violations or deviations were identified.
,
r
.
.
g)
General Employee Training The inspector verified through the review of training records that the licensee's general employee training program was consistent with j
10 CFR Part 19.12, " Instructions to Workers".
'
No violations or deviations were identified.
h)
Liquid Releases and Solid Wastes An examination of the licensee's health physics records disclosed that no liquid effluent releases were made from the RRF since the
previous inspection nor were any solid wastes generated during this i
period.
No violations or deviations were identified.
4.
Emergency Plan Implementation The licensee's capabilities for responding to-emergencies as specified in
'
the licensee's approved Emergency Plan of February 1986, and for demonstrating compliance with 10 CFR Part 50.54(q) and 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E were examined.
i The examination included a review of applicable training records, emergency plan implementing procedures, emergency respcnse equipment, d.~ill scenarios, drill critiques and discussions with the ARD.
Also examined were the memoranda of understanding maintained with offsite agencies such as the Fire Department, Police Department, Hospital and State of Oregon emergency response organization.- The ARD stated that training of the offsite agencies involved the training of a larger number of individuals than were originally expected.
For instance; the local police department has a staff of approximately 200 patrolmen that may be called upon during an emargency.
The ARD stated the police department and fire department management staff had been trained.
He added that he was in the process of developing a video tape presentation to be used for training the patrolmen and fire department firefighters.
The inspector noted that the licensee had conducted three emergency exercises since October 1986.
Nearly 100% of the R0s and SR0s had-participated in the exercises.
The inspector concluded that the licensee was maintaining the emergency plan in accordance with 10 CFR Part 50.54(q).
No violations or deviations were identified.
5.
Information Notices (IN's) and Generic Letters (GLs)
Discussions were held with the ARD to determine if he was routinely receiving NRC reports such as IN's, GL's and Bulletin.
.
The ARD stated that he had not received any of the above documents since he assumed the new position as the Acting Reactor Director in September 1986.
The NRC inspector notified the NRR Project Manager of the fact that the RRF were not receiving documents referenced herein.
The NRR Project Manager stated that he would arrange to have old copies of applicable documents sent to RRF and would arrange to put the RRF on a routine L
distribution mailing list.
'
A copy of GL 86-11, " Distribution of Products Irradiated in Research l
Reactors" was provided to the ARD for review.
Discussion with the ARD after his review of GL 86-11 revealed that the licensee does not plan to irradiate any gem stones for commercial or private use.
As a precautionary measure, the inspector informed the licensee to notify the appropriate NRC office to request that the RRF be included on a normal distribution list for receiving NRC documents such as IN's, GL's, etc.
No violations or deviations were identified.
6.
Environmental Monitoring Improvements in the licensee's environmental monitoring program have been implemented by the licensee since the inspection of 1985.
The licensee's environmental monitoring program prescribed in 50P-20,
" Environmental Sampling" includes requirements for performing direct radiation measurements with thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLD's), and for water samples and soil samples analysis.
The TLD's are processed by an offsite vendor on a quarterly basis.
The water and soil samples are analyzed by an offsite vendor on a semiannual basis.
Both the soil and water samples are taken outside of the reactor building.
The ARD stated that he and the ROC and RSC had recently decided to change the current locations of the environmental TLD's so that t' ey more n
clearly measure direct radiation levels in the environs.
Currently the environmental TLD measurements are made in the Hi-bay area of the reactor facility. The licensee's staff is planning to relocate the TLD's to locations outside the reactor facility.
The ARD also stated that SOP-20 currently requires that reactor pool water samples be obtained and analyzed for radioactivity levels semiannually.
The Director added that the pool water samples which are not TS requirements have not been obtained because it is not considered to be representative of the environs.
The ARD stated that 50P-20 will be modified to address the relocation of the environmental TLD's and to delete the sampling of the pool water.
He added that monthly pool water samples will be subsequently taken as part of the reactor operations program.
The results of TLD measurements, water samples and soil samples taken on November 8, 1986 were reviewed. The radioactivity levels observed from
--.
_..
the offsite environmental monitoring program gave no evidence.of changes in the environs due to reactor operations.
The inspector noted that the licensee's environmental monitoring program exceeded Technical Specification requirements.
.No violations or deviations were identified.
7.
Facility Tour The inspector toured the licensee's facility to check the general state of housekeeping and to verify that posting and labeling was consistent with 10 CFR Part 20.203 and that radiation monitoring instrumentation were in current calibration and were operating properly.
Independent surveys were performed using a Keithley Model 36100 x-ray / gamma radiation survey meter, Serial No.-11106, due for calibration on August 23, 1987.
i The inspector noted the facility cleanliness was excellent.
All. fixed and portable instrumentation observed were operating properly and were in current calibration.
The independent measurements confirmed that the licensee's posting and labeling practices were consistent with 10 CFR Part 20.203.
No abnormal measurements were observed.
No violations or deviations were identified.
8.
Open Items The inspector examined the corrective actions taken by the licensee in resolving previous inspection findings such as enforcement items, inspectors findings and licensee reported events.
The examination disclosed the following:
a)
Enforcement Items (Closed) Corrective actions for enforcement items 50-288/85-01-03, 50-288/85-01-04,-50-288/86-01-01, 50-288/86-01-02, 50-288/86-05-03 are addressed ~in the licensee's timely responses dated May 31, 1985 and July 25, 1986.
The following provides a description of each item:
Regulatory Item #
Requirement Description 85-01-03 NRC's Approved Failure to maintain reactor
R0/SR0 operators requalification program Requalification Program of November 1980
_
_,
i 85-01-04 10 CFR Part Manipulation of facility 55.31(e)
controls by individuals who had not operated the reactor for periods greater than four months.
86-01-01 Same as #1 above Failure to select an SRO to j
prepare and administer the annual R0 examination 86-01-02 Technical Failure to perform the Specification semiannual control element rod drop time checks-86-01-03 Technical Assignment of a Radiation Safety Specifications Committee member that was not authorized by the Technical Specification 86-05-03 Same as 1 and 3 Failure to conduct SR0/R0 semiannual meetings.
The licensee's corrective actions were verified and found to be satisfactory during_the examinations discussed in the preceeding paragraphs of this report..This matter is closed.
b)
Followup Items (Closed) Corrective actions for followup items 50-288/85-01-01, 50-288/85-01-02, 50-288/85-01-05, 50-288/85-01-06 are addressed in the licensee's let'.er dated October 8, 1986.
The following provides a description of each item:
Item #
Description 85-01-01 Determine adequacy of the licensee's organization 85-01-02 Maintenance of logs and records
,
85-01-05 Determine adequacy of licensee's Standard Operating Procedures 85-01-06 Implementation of the licensee's emergency plan.
The licensee's corrective actions were verified and found to be satisfactory during.the examinations discussed in the preceding paragraphs of this report.
This matter is closed.
'
c)
Licensee Event Reports (Closed) The licensee's corrective actions for licensee event report 86-01-L1 of January 6,1986 were examined and found to be satisfactory.
The report identified that weekly checks of reactor coolant co_nductivity and alarm set point'of the continuous air monitor and area radiation monitor had not been conducted between
.
-
-
- _
, _ -
.
.
the period of November 22 and December 19, 1985 as prescribed in the Technical Specifications. This item was examined as part of the routine inspection program discussed in paragraph 2.
No additional discrepancies were found.
This matter is closed.
d)
Other (Closed) No information related to items identified as DW-82-01, DW-82-02 and 81-02-02 could be located by the licensee or in the NRC's records other than the NRC open items list.
The item descriptions are as follows:
Item #
OI Type Description DW-82-01 Other Exceeded rated thermal power DW-82-02 Other Procedure change to verify correct power range indication 81-02-02 Unresolved (No description included)
Correspondence files and previous inspection reports were reviewed in an attempt to ascertain the concerns associated with these items.
No information could be located.
Discussions with the licensee also failed to identify any information related to these items.
This matter is closed.
9.
Exit Interview
.
The inspector met with the individuals (denoted in paragraph 1) at the conclusion of the inspection on April 3, 1987.
The scope and findings of the inspection were summarized.
The licensee was informed that no violations or deviations were identified.