IR 05000288/1989001
| ML20246N694 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Reed College |
| Issue date: | 08/22/1989 |
| From: | North H, Wenslawski F NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20246N688 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-288-89-01, 50-288-89-1, NUDOCS 8909080238 | |
| Download: ML20246N694 (13) | |
Text
p m- .
-
..)
- -;;; Y \
' -
H . .
. . 1
!
. v- , -
Ik U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i b
i REGION V e !
-Report No. 50-288/89-01-Docket No. 50-288-
' License No. R-112 I Licensee: Reed College l Portland, Oregon 97202 i Facility Name: Reed Reactor Facility (RRF) l
Inspection at: Raed College,' Portland, Oregon Inspection Conducted: August 1-4, 1989 ..
Inspector: 7 _
8/h P -
~<*- H.' S North, Senior Radiation Specialist Date Signed i
'
Approved by: .[ Mmm ,2 /#9 . ,
"
F.-A.' Wenslawski, Chief Date Signed Facilities Radiological Protection Section ^
% , ,
-
,
,j '
Summary: -
'
. e ye f Inspection on Auoust 1-4, 1989 (Report No. 50-288/89-01)
- ...
Areas Inspected: Rcatine unannounced inspection by a regionally based
,j i
-
inspector of the reactor operations program; including reactor operations, j* health physics, emergency planning and preparedness, transportation ;
activities, follow-up items and exit interview. Inspection procedures 30703, i 40750, 86740 and 92717 were addresse Results: In the five areas inspected, no violations or deviations were identified. The licensee conducts an effective program capable of meeting i their safety objective GO23s s90822 ;
PDR ADOCK0500g;L}8 O
_ _ - ____ _. . _ - - _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _
__- __
- -
?' ' -
, .. .
. . 1
[ DETAILS i Persons Contacted
-
.
- Dr. D. Bennett, Vice President-Provost
- Dr.- L. Ruby, Director RRF, Professor of Nuclear Science
- ,
'
- J. M. Pollock, Associate Director RRF
! > , * Dr. D. Garrity, Chairman, Radiation Safety Committee, Prof 6ssor of Chemistry >
- S..Herbelin, Senior Reactor Operator (SRO), Acting Reactor Superviso D. Morfwaki, Reactor Operator (RO) . .
Dr. M. W. Parrott, Reactor Health Physicist,. Health Physics Consultant
-
b , " (*) Denotes those individuals attending the exit intervie .
'
?- ' Reactor Operations (40750) General-v, Drs. James L. Powell and Douglas Bennett have replaced Drs. Bragdon
,
_and Cronyn as the President and Vice President-Provost, Reed College, respectively. The remainder of the RRF administrative and
'- ; '
academic staff remain as described in Inspection Report 50-288/88-02. Both the Director and Associate Director RRF are licensed SR0's. An additional SRO license is held by a professor at Pacific University. The principal operating staff, SRO's and RO,s, are students, who have completed the necessary training as an extra curricular activit The normally assigned Reactor Supervisor, a student SRO, was not present.on the campus during the summer. This position was filled by a student SRO in an acting capacity for the summe At the time of the inspection a three week, National-Science Foundation workshop, involving irradiation of geologic samples, was being conducted on the Reed campu The inspection established that reactor operations were consistent with the information provided in the licensee's annual report for the period September 1, 1987 - August 31, 1988. The inspector observed reactor operation including startup and shutdown, power increase, sample irradiation and handling and recovery from an unanticipated event. The licensee's program and staff appear to be adequate to meet their safety objectives. No violations or deviations were identifie Organization Except as noted in the previous report section, the licensee's organization, related to reactor operations, remains as previously described. A total of three committees, the Reactor Review Committee (RRC), the Reactor Operations Committee (ROC) and the Radiation Safety Committee (RSC) are active on campus. The RRC is, in fact, an incorporation (integration) of the ROC and RSC as subcommittees. The two subcommittees do not meet as a single
- _ _ - _
, . _ _ _ - - _ - _ _
t L, : - .
6 2
l
.
l L ccmmittee, each conducting their meetings as independent entitie The RSC and ROC are specifically identified in the Technical Specifications (TS). The licensee plans to propose an amendment to l' the TS, combining the ROC and RSC into one committee with two subcommittees. The committees are reconstituted each year, The
'
membership meets the requirements specified in the TS. Formal minutes of committee meetings are maintained and were on file.
t
'
Since June 1988 the ROC had met three times and the RSC twice, at the time of the inspection. It was noted that the ROC reviewed all proposed procedure changes, new, changed or revised experiments, and k,, 10 CFR 50.59 changes. Due to infrequent committee meetings and the 4 r committees diligence in reviewing procedure changes, proposed
,
-
procedure changes are frequently delayed. This has occurred at a
,~ time when the licensee has been revising, updating and reformatting
'
a significant number of procedures. It was noted that the
.,
,3 licensee's organization and operations met the requirements '
specified in TS Sections I.-Administrative Requirements 1.- i The licensee is supported in the area of health physics by a
'
ad: consultant, two days per month. The consultant reports to the Vice President-Provost and the RRF Director. The consultant is supported
- , by a Reactor Assistant, a student employee, who functions as a f health physics _ technician at the reactor facility and at on campus laboratories conducting activities licensed by the State of Orego '
In this area the licensee's program appeared adequate to meet their safety objectives. No violations or deviations were identifie c. Review and Audit The ROC and RSC establish audit schedules which are implemented by various members of the committees. The ROC conducted an audit of the bimonthly and annual checklists, for the period January 1987 to May 1988, in June 1988 'with a follow-up audit of weekly checklists and the main log and general facility operations 90 days later. The Director RRF responded to the audit findings. The results of an audit of the same general topics was scheduled for review at the next meeting of the ROC. The RSC had established an audit scheduie and had conducted an audit of the emergency plan. The audits appeared adequate to meet the licensee's safety objectives. No violations or deviations were identifie d. Corrective Actions for Unusual Events and Occurrences fince the last inspection the licensee had reported several event On October 18, 1988, the licensee reported a small chemical fire in the chemistry building which houses the RRF, on October 17, 198 The fire was extinguished bv ctudents prongtly, however, the smoke alarms were activated and the. fire department responded. The RRF was shut down, secure, with no experiments in progress and unoccupied at the time. The fire department evacuated portions of the chemistry building and used blowers to clear the smoke. The reactor staff was not notified of the event promptly and therefore
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ -
_
s 4 -
,
. 3
.. .
x t-
[u ,T L .did not inform the Regin V office of the event until the following-L4 ,
day. The licensee has taken corrective action to assure that the
- RRF staff will be promptly notified of such events in the futur l
The licensee had initiated action to revise the emergency plan to limit Notification.of Unusual Events, to those fires, to which the fire department responds and which require evacuation of the entire 1 chemistry building. The licensee submitted a report of'this event dated January 17, 1989, which proposed the corrective actions'noted ,
abov '
s .
,
" #. On December 16, 1988, the reactor experienced an unanticipated
% increase in power due to withdrawal of the ssfety rod. The Director s
" "
and Associate' Director promptly investigated the event'which had- .
been observed by an RO performing operations as a part of:the> >
[A requalification program. Repeated operation subsequently k
'
established that the safety rod control rod drive switch was'the N, apparent problem. The licensee reported the event to-the NRC ,..g promptly and by letter reports dated January 6 and 10,1989. 'I ' "Z]' 'ff
. telephone discussion with the Region V office: on December 19,1988, the licensee agreed not to make the reactor' critical until the cause , . ,
,'.
f, of the aberrant behavior of the safety rod was fully understood.>
The agreement was confirmed in a letter to' the licensee' from' Region '
V dated December 21, 1988. Subsequent testing by the licensee'and
')
discussions with General Atomics staff members established that the problem was mechanical sticking of the control rod switch, following cleaning, lubrication and testing of the switch the licensee reported their findings during a January 6,1989, tc4 phone discussion with Region V staff. The licensee requested- o authorization to resume reactor operations. The licensee was requested to submit the Report on Errant-Control-Rod Incident of 12/16/88 to NRR for review following which the matter of recommenced operations would be readdressed. In a conference call on January 9, 1989, which included the licensee, NRR and Region V, the licensee was informed that reactor operations could be resumed. The licensee was also asked to provide information on the safety significance of
! the event, a discussion of the planned maintenance / surveillance for the faulty switch and information to support the issuance of an Information Notice on the switch problem. The licensee provided this information in a letter dated January 10, 198 During the inspection it was verified that the cleaning of the red actuating switches had been added to the annual maintenance schedul Procedure 50P-66, Cleaning of Operator Actuated Rod Switches, received committee approval and was implemented in May 198 During the inspection, while the reactor was being operated by the student SRO and R0, the TRIGA tube recovery device, used to recover capsules from the " lazy susan" irradiation facility, failed and came apart while a capsule recovery was in progres The SR0 and RG carried out the recovery of all the parts from the device using good radiation protection practices, reassembled the recovery device and recovered the capsule. It is noted that the operators kept the RRF faculty staff advised of the event and plans for recover _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _
, _
_ _ - _ _ _ _ _
,
,,M ~i
@ ] .':
-
,
'
> '
y, jk l .
h, E 1
.(# ~ ~
.The licensee's response t'o these. events indicates an appropriate
"
-h '
-
degree of sensitivity to safety concerns.and appeared to demonstrate
, .
'
a high level of student operator proficiency. No^ violations or-deviations were 1dentifie ~
' ~
- %
>
'
>
t.:
Experiments '
> 1 +
e
.
Records of approved experiments were examine Experiment No. 1
-
Routine Irradiations Utilizing Rotating Specimen Rack or Pneumatic ,
Transfer System, had been revised to incorporate all or portions of ' '.'
. routine experimer.ts 3, 4, 13 and 14. A total of 16 additional routine experiments were examined. All experiments were identified .
'
as ROC approved'and signed. The most recently approved experiments'
'
were experiment 21, Electronically Measured Control Rod Drop Times, -
and experiment 22, Rod _ Drop Time Measured with Electro-Optical Isolator? These two experiments had been implemented to replace rod drop timing using stop watches with an electronic timer which sensed the rod magnet off-indication and the rod down indicator ligh Experiment 22 provided for optical sensing of the control panel indicator lights which precludes any potential for signal feedback to the control panel. Review of the ROC meeting minutes and experiments established that all experiments had been examined for unreviewed safety questions, as required by 10 CFR 50.59, and reviewed and approved by the committee prior to implementation The documents presented to the ROC for review included the 10 CFR 50.59 review, the proposed procedure or change and supporting documentatio The Associate Director of the RRF had developed a computer program to evaluate the activity of irradiated mineral samples at any future time, beginning at T=0. The ROC had reviewed and approved the program for use at the facilit It appeared that the licensee was providing appropriate controls on experiments to meet their safety goals. No violations or deviations were identifie Site Tour During the inspection the flRF was toured several times. It was noted that housekeeping was very good in the control and reactor room In other portions of the facility the quality of housekeeping was not. as noticeable due to the crowded nature of the facility and the age of much of the equipment. However it was noted that significant efforts had been expended to improve and maintain good housekeeping. The tours included the counting room, laboratory, control room, reactor room and equipment roo Independent surveys in the control, reactor and mechanical equipment rooms were performed using an ion chamber survey instrument NRC-015844, due for calibration September 26, 1989. The survey
, , results were consistent with the results of licensee surveys, both L those performed at the time of the inspection and those documented in survey record s
. _ - _ _ - . - . _ _ _ _ . _ _ .
, ,
.
'
".
.
. .5 l;
.
,
\
?~ The inspector had the opportunity to observe the student R0 and SR0 .!
g
.
.during startup and completion of the Startup Checklist,< including j', rod drop time measurement, interlock verifications including,
'
,,
tV '
instrument scram settings, source count rate interlock, single ro + M M motion interlock and core excess reactivity check and reactor '
e shutdow Operation at 5 W, 5 kW and approach to and operation at full power (administratively limited to 94%, 235 kW):was observe ,
,
-
The licensee had imposed the administrative limit due to a ,
J . fluctuating response of the power indicating channel and' recorder.
L The licensee had taken action to minimize the fluctuations by; I, e repositioning the circulating water return to minimize the apparent m '
vibration of the detecto The licerne rgorted that the apparents Q fluctuations had been reduced to approximately +1% of full powerm .
'7 P , The licensee had not approved operation at increased power following V the change in the cooling water discharge flow paths The inspector also witnessed the operation of the pneumatic irradiation sample transfer system (rabbit) and " lazy susan" facilities and the insertion and removal of samples from these devices. It'was noted that the operators used good radiation protection practices in the recovery of sample It was noted that the operating procedures reflected the as-built system and that the operators were familiar with the procedure It was noted that the operators were able to conduct their activities in A cordance with the procedures, without having tne procedures in han Current copies of the operating and emergency procedures were available in the control roo Shortly before the inspection began the licensee had received a shipment of fuel and spare parts from the University of California, Berkeley TRIGA facility. The shipment included four new, unirradiated fuel elements (20% enriched), used irradiated fission chambers and several fuel storage racks. The licensee noted that this material addition to the facility inventory significantly added to the potential operating lifetime of the reacto The licensee stated that prior to the receipt of the new fuel the only fuel on hand, in addition to the core, was one dummy element and one element which had been dropped while being moved, several years earlier. The lower core plate locating pin had been damaged and the element was not usable. Both of these elements were stored in the reactor poo The University of California, Berkeley had requested authorization for the use of a Model No. TRIGA-1, Type USA 9034/AF shipping container for the fuel transfer to the RRF in a letter dated July 24, 198 The licensee had performed and documented receipt surveys of the packages when they arrived. Confirmatory surveys by the inspector were consistent with the licensee's result It was verified that the fuel handling tool was secured in it's place of storage by a loc s With respect to the administrative limit on full power operation discussed above, the licensee expressed concern related to the potential for being cited for exceeding the maximum authorized licensed power level if minor fluctuations in the indicated power
.
- .*
'
.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_
. _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _
,
' - '
). 6 i
.. .' '
% l [, . 1 level exceeded the 100% power indicatio The inspector informed f ^
.
7 the' licensee that the intent was to operate at a; steady state poser'
Y'
P level of 10C% and that minor fluctuations which indicated power'in .
-excess of 100% were not considered to be indicative of steady state ,
(f' operation. It was noted that should the i.n,dicated power remain , #
'
R above the 100%. indicated power level for any appreciable time.the-ly
'
) power should be reduce .
? .
The licensee's pro 0 ram-in this area appeared to be consistent with
.
~
their safety goal ,
! No violations or-deviations.were identified; -s pn '
E ' Records Review The following licensee records were reviewed: '
Main Log (Console Log); " Log Book #35, February 25, 1989 to ----- ".
Records maintained in black ink, scrams in green and fuel movements in red. Table of rod worths in 5 unit increments in the back of the book (totals- safety $4.06, shim $4.12, regulating $1.59). Records for the period February 25 - August 2,1989 were reviewed. " Log Book #34, 24 May 1988 - 25 Feb 1989". Records for the period July 29, 1988 to February 14, 1989 were reviewed. It was noted that the Director RRF reviewed and signed the logs at approximately monthly interval " Weekly Checklist" for the period June 1 to August 2,1989 were reviewed. These records addressed radiation monitors (area, air particulate and continuous air), pool' water level, primary and
, secondary cooling systems and instrument air supply. Signed by the checker and Reactor Superviso "Bi-monthly Checklist", eight completed checklists completed during the period May 5, 1988, - July 20, 1989, were reviewed. These checklists addressed functional test of the reactor room ventilation isolation system, low water alarm test, CAM oil level, secondary water pressure low alarm test, safety light test and check of the TRIGA capsule retrieval tool fishing lin Signed by the Reactor Supervisor and RRF Directo " Semi-annual Checklist", reviewed for the periods July-August 1988, January-March and June-July 198 These checklists addressed calibration of the continuous air, area radiation and stack monitors, control rod calibration, rod drop time verifications, portable survey instruments, " lazy susan" lubrication, inspection and testing of the " rabbit" system, emergency supply check, collection and analysis of environmental samples and drying the
" lazy susan" with desiccant, Signed by the Reactor Supervisor and RRF Directo " Annual Checklist", the January 13, 1989, checklist was reviewe This checklist addressed console checkout (as per Gulf General Atomic manual), fuel element inspection, control rod inspection (due only on even years), bulk water temperature alarm, flush and bleed air from heat exchanger, power calibration and verification of last a
s
...___..__________.-________-.______________m__
y c - -
.
.,
g
.
s
,
'
'. 7 l~. .
-
x .
s R
t ~ service of ventilation syste Signed by the Reactor Supervisor and n
>
RRF Directo "PCN" (Procedure Change Notice Log), maintained in the control room contained new and revised procedures. Sign-off sheets for operators
, were contained in the lo " Stack Monitors-Book 2", contained records of gas stack monitor (GSM) calibrations. Calibrations were performed July 26, 1988 and June 29, 198 %
" Health Physics Book 3B-Environmental Samples", identified the'
sample types, dates of collection and ' analytical result Samples were analyzed by U.S. Testing Co. Samples analyzed included water
'
,
both upstream and down stream from the secondary cooling water butfall from the RRF. The upstream and downstream samples were 3.97 E0 pCi/l and 2.16 E0 pCi/1, respectively, for samples-collected-on January 10, 1989. The reactor was operated at 5 W and-200 kW on January.9 and 3 W and 150 kW on January 10, 1989. One sediment and four soil samples showed no significant activity above backgroun The last previous environmental samples were collected July 21,
.198 " Wipe Test Log Book", recorded the results of smear' samples collected as required by 50P-02 Health Physics Wipe Tests. Results recorded in units of pCi/100cm sq. No contamination above the procedure identified limit of 0.005 pCi/100cm sq was identifie The log entries were signed and reviewed by the Reactor Superviso " Area Monitor-RAM-Semi Yearly Calibration Reports", contained -
records of the calibration of the area monitor. Calibrations were performed on July 25, 1988 and January 11, 198 " Continuous Air Monitor-CAM-Calibration Reports", recorded the results of calibrations performed on July 25, 1988, and January 10 and June 29,198 " Control Rod Calibrations", documented the results of calibrations performed on January 17-18, 1989, using RODCAL version 4.06 The
,
reported values were Shim $4.30, Reg $1.67 and Safety $4.2 i The licensee's system of records appeared adequate to support thei safety objectives. No violations or deviations were identifie &
' Procedures The licensee had been reviewing, revising and reformatting
procedures. The procedures were all submitted to the ROC for comment and approval prior to implementation. Due to infrequent committee meetings the review and approval process tended to delay
'
the implementation of revised procedures. During the inspection selected procedures were reviewed including:
'
i
- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
g, . y" 7# ,;p-.
" '
, ,
.
,
- r 1
&M & * ~
+
,- <
j$mi- !d-
'
.
~
.
-
2.
%3b* - -Reed Reactor Facility Administrative Procedures .
-
E:
'. "
nm
'
SOP-02 Health Physics Wipe Tests; QL SOP-30 Calibration of the CAM (being revised)
50P-31 Gaseous Stack Monitor Calibration (being revi ud)
SOP-32 Particulate Stack Monitor Calibration (being revised)
SOP-33' Control Rod Calibration SOP-50 Filling.0ut Irradiation Requests (being revised)
SOP-52 Shipping Radioactive Materials (in approval process)
SOP-66 Cleaning of the Operator Actuated Rod Switches '
In addition the " Reed Reactor Facility-Standard Operating Procedures-Copy No. 1", was examine The licensee's procedures appeared.to be adequate to meet their safety objectives. No violations or deviations were identifie Requalification Training The licensee conducts a requalification training program which incorporates the operating requirements for research and test reactors specified in 10 CFR 55.53 (e) and (f)(2). The requalification program incorporates applicable aspects of 10 CFR 55.59.(c)(1) through (6) as required by 10 CFR 55.59 (c)(7). The licensee's schedule for requalification training operates on a yearly schedule beginning and ending on July 1. During the trainin cycle beginning July 1,1988, a total of 14 lectures were presented between July.7 and December 7, 1988. Two of the-lectures were
.
optional'for R0 and.SRO requalification since they satisfied a State of Oregon training requirement for radioisotope handlers and user Attendance lists were maintained. Individuals were responsible for reviewing the material presented during any missed lectures. Annual written comprehensive examinations are required for all R0s and SR0s. An individual with a minimum passing grade of 70% on the written or operating portions of the examination or apparent deficiencies in operating skills, in-the opinion of the Director, shall not operate the reactor except under the direct supervision of an SRO until an accelerated requalification program has been completed. Any R0 or SR0 who fails to achieve a score of 80% on any portion of the written examination must complete an accelerated requalification program. The 1989 lecture series included the following topics:
February 15- 10 CFR 20;
'
February 22- License, Technical Specifications, Administrative
. Procedures; 7- March 8- Biological Effects of Radiation; t March 29- Practical Operational Health Physics, Operation of the
'
.
" lazy susan", Shipping Radioactive Material; April 12- Reactor Console, Neutron Detection System; April 19- Control Rods and Associated Drive Motors, Microswitches
- and Console Light During the 1989 Paideia (ski two week vacation) schedule, eight days
,
of lectures and reactor operations were conducted as well as tours 3-
- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _
.. m x, -
- ---- -- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Q+% , ^, ', ,+"'
yr Q <
,
~
, ,
p$b .
, ,
,
'
y to the Richland low level waste disposal site and Trojan Nuclear Power Plan The licensee maintains records of R0 and SR0 reactor operatio These records ' include Reactor Observation Record (required reactivity manipulations), Operator Observation Record (record of
~
operators performance during performance of various tasks).
The requalification files of five student R0s and SR0s were examined. The records were adequate to demonstrate the
- accomplishment;of the requalification training progra The Requalification Training Program was adequate to accomplish the licensee's safety objective No violations or deviations were identifie Surveillance The inspector verified that the following surveillance activities were accomplished at or more frequently than required by the TS by reviewing licensee records:
TS F.5. The type and minimum number of safety circuits operable were as specified in TS Table I; TS F.6. The type and minimum number of interlocks operable were as specified in TS Table II; TS F.7. The reactor instrumentation and safety circuits listed in TS'
Table I were verified operable at least once per day when the #
reactor was operated; TS F.8. Following maintenance or modification of the control or safety systems the system was verified operable (cleaning of control rod drive switches);
TS F.9.a. Control rod drop times less than one second; TS F.9.b. Functional test of the ventilation system interlocks; TS F.10. Linear power level channel calibrated annually by thermal power calibration; The licensee's attention to surveillance requirements appeared adequate to meet their safety requirements. No violations or deviations were identifie . Health Physics (40750) Posting >
r .
'3 During tours of the facility, noted above, postings required by.10 CFR 19.11 and 20.203 were observed and verified to be as required by ,
'
the regulations, n,. .
s
- Personnel Monitoring L;-
The licensee uses both pocket ionization chambers (PIC) and
> J' quarterly TLD badges and finger rings, supplied by a NVLA '
accredited processor, to evaluate personnel exposures. TLD badges I
L t _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _
n
^
5' i'
L*2 # . 10
}'
-
.are used to perform environmental radiation measurement! in the c reactor room and on the roof of the reactor facilit Exposures for p
'
1988 and the first quarter of.1989 were reviewed. Results of th .second quarter 1989 had not been received at the time of the inspection. All personnel exposures were less than 10% of the -1.25 rem / quarter limit specified in 10 CFR 20.101. .A number of. students with access.to the facility, including R0s and SR0s, were under 18 years old during the time period of the records examined. The
, maximum whole body lifetime exposure was 80 mre The maximum extremity exposure recorded was 70 mre The PICS, used by the licensee, were calibrated, using an NBS (NIST)
traceable sealed source, by a member of the licensee's ROC. ' PICS found to be faulty were discarde Since the last inspection the licensee had disposed of no radioactive liquid waste under the reactor licens Due to the relatively low power of the RRF and the difficulty of integrating under the curve of the stack gas monitor recorder, the licensee elected to evaluate gaseous effluents using a different techniqu For the September 1, 1987,.to August 31, 1988, annual report period, the licensee used the ratio of thermal energies of the RRF and the Oregon State. University (OSU) TRIGA and the reported Argon-41 9,.
releases from OSU to estimate the release from the RPF. At the time
- '
of the inspection the licensee had not completed a similar or ,
I '
alternate calculation for the 1988-89 time period. For ethe last ,
. annual report the licensee's reported release using this method was f a 0. 0608 Ci Ar-41. At the stack flow rate this was equivalent to!an average release rate of 3.07 E-9 pCi/ml, substantially less than the
'
F >
N, *
. most restrictive value given in 10 CFR 20 Appendix B, 4 E-8 pCi/m '
c w a ,' Surveys
'
~.
g
- J' ,
In addition to the contamination surveys performed by the reactor 4,
'
technician,' recorded in the " Wipe Test Log Book", discussed above in '
E
. .
report section 3.g., daily surveys are performed as a part.of the f "Startup Checklist". The results of these surveys were recorded on k, " that form. The inspector observed an R0 and SRO removing samples from the " lazy susan" and monitoring samples' discharged from the
" rabbit" irradiation system. The operators were using good radiation safety practices and evaluating each irradiated sample
,! with a survey instrument at a distance prior to approaching the sample closel The licensee's health physics practices appeared to be adequate to protect the health and safety of the staff and the publi No violations or deviations were identifie . Emergency Planning and Preparedness (40750)
The licensee maintained a complete copy of the Emergency Plan, Implementing Procedures and the Emergency Call List in the control room within arms reach of the operator. These documents were reviewed durir J
- _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _
-_ - - - _ .- _
-. -
,
-
y <
'*
f
.y ;
_p
.-< , - ( " ;- > . -
yy ,
! r .. -
-
..
9 [, '
-
the inspection! .Since the last inspection the licensee has conducted e .l three drill l C
b Scenarios:
d
'
June 24,1988: . Severe earthquake causes' facility blackout, loss of E communication and one personnel'contamir.ation event. Telephone call .. !
' ~'
made to Reed Security , NRC, Waln'ut Creek, CA, Oregon DOE. sA post drill evaluation was. performed and' potential improvements identifie g
? ' December 3, 1988: Senior. faculty SRO experiences heart attack at reacto N -
- console. RO in facility responds properly and takes corrective action .
L Drill resulted in' obtaining a. qualified first aid instructor on campus' <
'due to'an identified nee ]
!
April 15,1989: ' Complex scenario involving personnel injury, radioactive '
i material release; ambulance and (simulated) fire department response and !
, contamination even j
y; In all cases post drill critiques and evaluations identifled areas needing improvemen .
The licensee.was taking corrective actions in these area ~
All agreement letters with the fire and police departments and ambulance .
service and hospital were current. The hospital declined to play'in RRF drills, however the Reed staff were permitted to observe drills at the hospital when the hospital played during a' Trojan Nuclear Power Plant-dril RRF. staff members have been included as observers at Trojan emergency plan drills.-
f( Training in the area of emergency response included a' lecture, video and
' drill on April 15, 1989, the emergency drill of December 3, 1988 and a
>
[
~
f[, ff ' requalification meeting on . September 29, 1988, addressing the emergency plan and procedure e
.
.. ' i
'
- g" The licensee's emergency preparedness. activities appeared ade'quate to meet their safety objective No violations'or deviations sere -
<
identifie ,
, ;
'
y qn ,
l 9r Transportation' Activities (86740)
m'I , . ,
.J
]
-
1* The licensee was in the process of reviewing and app' roving a new .
, 'l
.
6 procedure SOP-52 Snipping Radioactive Materials. During 1988 a total of j
'
Mf~ 10 and in 1989 a total of 15 transfers of radioactive materials from.the.
's- RRF had occurred. The only individuals authorized to ship or transfer'
radioactive materials off campus are the P.RF Director and Associate . .,
Director. With'one exception all the transfers were to local (Portland, i OR) facilities, licensed by the State of Orego The local recipients of j
'.
materials from the RRF pick up the irradiated samples at Reed College. . '
The licensee maintains records on the Reed Reactor Facility Shipping Form which was patterned on that used by Oregon State University. .The only
- shipment which was not a local transfer was an air shipment of a short lived irradiation sample to Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory on December 7, 1988. For this.. single shipment of 6 E-3 mci of Si-31, Mn-54 and Na-24 ;
i
!
i
.
_ . _ _ _ . _ . . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
y
-
o
, [- '. 12
'l the' licensee's committee approved'the use of the new shipping procedure for;this single use. The licensee delivered the shipment to the Portland International Airport in a Reed College' vehicle. An examination of the-shipping documents and survey records revealed no discrepancies. Prior to the shipment the licensee had purchased four new DOT certified 7A type A container The. licensee's transportation program appeared adequate to meet the requirements of 49 CFR and 10 CFR 71 and 2 No violations or deviations were identifie . Information Notices (92717)
The inspector verified that the licensee had received and reviewed-Information Notice No. 89-09: Credit For Control Rods Without Scram Capability In The Calculation Of Shutdown Margin. Since all the RRF control rods have scram capability this Information Notice was not applicable (IN-89-09, Closed). The inspector discussed.the need for a amendment.to the facility license should the licensee wish to irradiate byproduct material. The licensee stated that there were no plans to irradiate such material (88-08-18, Closed). It was noted that the licensee had in place a formal program for the receipt, review and dissemination of pertinent information contained in Information Notice . Exit Interview (30703)
The scope and findings of the inspection were discussed with the
, . individuals denoted in Report Section 1. The licensee was informed that no violationsaor deviations had been identified. It was. the inspectors
'
conclusion that the facility was being operated in a safe and c
-
,
conservative manne ,
,
'J
+
. >
+
Y C a Y
.c ,
.* ,
/-
_ _ _ _ _ _