IR 05000294/1979002
| ML19270F900 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000294 |
| Issue date: | 02/16/1979 |
| From: | Charles Brown, Little W, Swanson E NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19270F898 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-294-79-02, 50-294-79-2, NUDOCS 7904030018 | |
| Download: ML19270F900 (4) | |
Text
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMISSION
,
OFFICE OF INSl'ECTION AND ENFORCEMENT RECION III Report No. 50-294/79-02 Docket No. 50-294 License No. F-114 Licensee: Michigan State University East Lansing, MI 48824 Facility Name:
TRIGA Reactor Inspection Conducted: January 31 - February 2, 1979
/
M /I
/
Inspectors:
E. R. Swanson
/
C. H.
o'i
'
/-
/
-
Approved By:
ittle, Chief J
/
Nuclear Support Section 2
/
'
Inspection Summary Inspection on January 31 - February 2, 1979 (Report No. 50-294/79-02)
Areas Inspected:
Routine, unannounced inspection of records, logs and organization, review and audit functions, requalification training, pro-cedures, surveillance and maintenance, experiments, licensee event fol-lowup, and independent inspection effort were conducted.
Reactor startup, routine operation and shutdown were observed. The inspection involved 30 inspection hours onsite by two NRC inspectors.
Results: Of the eight areas inspected, no items of noncompliance or deviations were identified in seven areas; one apparent itcm of deviation (Failure to conduct required training) was identified in one area.
7904030018
.
DETAILS
,
1.
Persons Contacted J. W. Hoffman, Director of the Division of Engineering Fesearch B. W. Wilkinson, Senior Peactor Operator J. T. Carrick, Reactor Supervisor 2.
Organization The licensee's organization and operational staffing were reviewed and found to be functioning in accordance with the technical speci-fication requirements.
Since last inspected, two operators have left the facility leaving one reactor operator and two senior reactor operators licensed to operate the reactor.
The licensee stated that there exists a need for a concerted effort to recruit and train additional operators.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified in this area.
3.
Logs and Records A review of operator's logs and maintenance logs for the inspection period was conducted and revealed that they adequately meet the facility's procedural requirements.
Significant problems appear to be satisfactorily resolved.
Specific maintenance problems are discussed under event followup.
No items of nonco:npliance or deviations were identified in this area.
4.
Review and Audit The reactor safety committee was found to be composed and function-ing as required by the technical specifications, with a quorum present at all meetings.
No audits have been conducted and the licensee stated that there is an effort being made to compose a board of knowledgeable, disinterested persons to perform an annual audit.
No design changes have been made in the last year though there is one concerning installation of a pneumatic sample transfer system in progress.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified in this area.
5.
Requalification Training Through discussions with operators and review of records it was determined that all three operators have been actively and exten-sively engaged in operation of the reactor.
Not all records are-2-
.
_
being maintained as required by the requalification program for
,
licensed operators though the information is retrievable from other sources.
Classroom training for two operators who did not receive sufficiently high grades on a section of the current annual examination was apparently not conducted and documented. The above constitutes an item of deviation from the commitments made in the requalification program for licensed operators of October 10, 1974.
6.
Surveillance The inspectors performed a general review of all surveillance pro-cedures for technical adequacy and verified that they appear to reflect the as built systems and have been accomplished at periodicities meeting technical specifications except as noted below.
Records of technical specification required surveillance were reviewed for the inspection period and apparently met all requirements except as follows.
The semi-annual pulse of the reactor core described in Technical Specification D.5. has not been performed since March 10, 1978 due to a series of problems with power level instrumentation identified by the licensee and detailed under Paragraph 9 and Anpendix A to this report.
No items of noncomplisnce or deviations were identified in this area.
7.
Procedures The inspectors verified that written procedures exist for all technical specification required surveillance; reactor startup, routine operation and shutdown; emergency and abnormal conditions; fuel loading and unloading; control rod removal and replacement; and safety related system maintenance.
They also were reviewed for adequacy and appar-ently meet the requirements.
The inspectors witnessed the completion of the daily checklist and observed the use of the startup and shutdown procedures.
There were no items of noncompliance or deviations iden-tified in this area.
8.
Experiments A review of records of experiments r.nd irradiations indicated that they were within the requirements of the technical specifications and that all had been reviewed and approve 6.
An operator was observed loadir3 and removing experiments utilizing appropriate radiological and pro-cedural precautions.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
-3-
.
9.
Review of Licensee Reported Event
,
The licensee reported the inoperability of the log power channel of the control console strip che-+ recorder to I&E Region III by letter dated December 14, 1978.
The
.censee stated that due to unavail-ability of parts the semi-annual pulse due in November could not be performed and that pulsing operation would not be resumed until it's repair.
Subsequent failure of the startup range channel further delayed operation until it's repair in January.
At the conclusion of the inspection all instrumentation was operable, but pulsing operations had not been resumed.
This item remains open pending further action by the licensee.
10.
Exit Interview The principal inspector met with the licensee representatives (listed in paragraph 1) at the conclusion of the inspection on February 2, 1979.
The licensee acknowledged the inspector's comments concerning requalification training and stated that a review would be conducted to insure that no required documentation would be omitted in the future. pulsing operations were discussed and the licensee stated that a letter would be forthcoming detailing further actions taken.
The licensee also stated that procedures would be reviewed to insure that all reflect their approval and date.
The inspector again contacted the reactor supervisor on February 8, 1979 and the licensee acknowledged the apparent item of deviation concerning their requalification program.
-4-