IR 05000294/1980003
| ML19337B632 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000294 |
| Issue date: | 08/28/1980 |
| From: | Boyd D, Ridgway K NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19337B627 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-294-80-03, 50-294-80-3, NUDOCS 8010080250 | |
| Download: ML19337B632 (6) | |
Text
-
.
O U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
+
OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
REGION III
Report No. 50-294/80-03 Docket No. 50-294 License No. R-114 Licensee: Michigan State University East Lansing, MI 48824 Facility Name: TRIGA Reactor Inspection Conducted: August 11-13, 1980 dP
[/6 Inspector:
K. R. Ridgway C9/6,6/.. l80-D.C.Boyd,/
/
Chief Approved By:
Projects Section 4 Inspection Summary Inspection on August 11-13, 1980 (Report No. 50-294/80-03)
Areas Inspected: Routine unannounced inspection of records, logs and organization; review and audit functions; requalification training, procedures, surveillance and maintenance; experiments; and followup action relative to IE Circulars and Open inspection items. This inspec-tion involved a total of 20 inspector-hours onsite by one NRC inspector including 0 inspector-hours onsite during off-shifts.
Results: Of the 7 areas inspected, no items of noncompliance were identi-fied in 5 areas; 2 apparent items of noncompliance (requalification training examination frequency and frequency of some surveillance and testing exceeded specified time limits) were identified in 2 areas.
8010080 p$Q
)
_
_.
-
- - -
o DETAILS
.
1.
Personnel Contacted
- L. W. VonTersch, Dean, College of Engineering
- B. W. Wilkinson, Chairman, Reactor Safety
- J.
T. Carrick, Reactor Supervisor
- Denotes those of the licensee's staff present at the exit interview.
2.
Organization, Logs and Records
The facility organization was reviewed and verified to be consistent with the Technical Specifications and/or Hazards Summary Report.
The minimum staffing requirements were verified to be present during reactor operations, and fuel handling or refueling operations.
The reactor logs and records were reviewed to verify that:
a.
Required entries were made, b.
Significant problems or incidents were documented.
c.
Facility was being maintained properly.
d.
.ards were available for inspection.
J No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
-
3.
Reviews and Audits The licensee's review and aadit program records were examined by the inspector to verify that:
a.
Reviews of facility changes, operating and maintenance proced-ures, design changes, and unreviewed experiments had been conducted by a safety review committee as required by Technical Specifications or Hazards Summary Report.
b.
That the review and audit committee was composed of qualified members and that quorum requirements for meetings and audits were met.
c.
Required safety audits had been conducted in accordance with Technical Specification requirements and that any identified problems were resolved.
-2-
_.. _
..- -_
.-
.
"
A previous inspection 1/ identified a noncompliance item concerning the Reactor Safety Committee (RSC) meeting frequency. The inspector reviewed the RSC meeting frequencies since that inspection and found that on one occasion the meeting frequency would have exceeded the standard Technical Specification (TS) maximum requirements of 115 days, however, the licensee's TS has a maximum RSC meeting frequency requirement of 4 months without further definition. The inspector reviewed the standard TS frequency definitions with licensee repre-sentatives at the close of the inspection. The previous item of noncompliance is considered to be closed.
The inspector noted that the licensee had been unsuccessful in obtaining an outside auditor.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
4.
Requalification Training The inspector reviewed procedures, logs and training records; and interviewed personnel to verify that the requalification training program was being carried out in conformance with the facility's approved plan and NRC regulations.
During the review of this area, the inspector noted that the 1978 annual requalification examinations had been administered on February 10, 1979 and the 1979 annual examination was given May 29, 1980. This frequency exceeds the annual frequency requirement commit-ment made in the requalification program of October 10, 1974, and is considered to be an infraction.
A previous inspection 2/ identified a deviation in the requalification training program in that licensed operators who obtained grades of less than 70% in certain examination sections, had not been required to train further in those sections. The inspector reviewed this area and determined that the required training had been documented.
5.
Procedures The inspector reviewed the licensee's procedures to determine if the procedures were issued, reviewed, changed, or updated and approved in accordance with Technical Specifications and HSR requirements.
This review also verified:
That procedure content was adequate to safely operate, refuel a.
and maintain the facility.
1/ IE Inspection Report No. 50-294/80-01 2/ IE Inspection Report No. 50-294/79-02-3-
.
b.
That responsibilities were clearly defined.
'
c.
That required checklists and forms were used.
The inspector determined that the required procedures were available and the contents of the procedures were adequate. Many of the procedures appeared to be the original procedures issued in the sixties. Most were not dated, some had penciled changes, there was
,
no evidence that they were periodically reviewed to ascertain if they were still acceptable, and there was no indication on the procedures that the RSC had reviewed and approved them.
'
Procedures in the areas of sample makeup, insertion, removal and disposal were not available.
The above procedural inadequacies were discussed with the licensee at the closeout meeting.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
6.
Surveillance The inspector reviewed procedures, surveillance test schedules and test records and discussed the surveillance program with responsible personnel to verify:
a.
That when necessary, procedures were available and adequate to perform the tests, b.
That tests were completed within the required time schedule.
c.
Test records were available.
During the inspection, it was determined that the following surveil-lance tests were not carried out at the required semi-annual frequen-cy:
d.
The TS requires the reactor to be pulsed semi-annually. The reactor was not pulsed between March 9, 1979 and November 12, 1979, a period of eight months.
e.
The TS requires the control rod drop time be determined semi-annually. The drop times were not determined between December, 1978 and September, 1979, a period of nine months.
f.
The TS requires a pulse rod inspection semi-annually at intervals not to exceed eight months. The pulse rod was not inspected between December, 1978 and September, 1979, a period of nine months.
(
-4-
.
Items e., '., and g. are considered to be in noncompliance with the
TS and an infraction.
Records of the required reactor interlock tests performed during th; daily and weekly tests were not available. The licensee stated that the diary or weekly check sheets would be modified to include records of these tests.
7.
Experiments The inspector verified by reviewing experiment records and other reactor logs that:
Experiments were conducted using approved procedures and under a.
approved reactor conditions.
b.
New experiments or changes in experiments were properly reviewed and approved.
The experiments did not involve an unreviewed safety question c.
i.e., 10 CFR 50.59.
d.
Experiments involving potential hazards or reactivity change were identified in procedures.
Reactivity limits were not or could not have been exceeded e.
during the experiment.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
8.
IE Circular Followup For the IE Circulars listed below, the inspector verified that the Circular was received by the licensee management, that a review for applicability was performed, and that if the circular were applicable to the facility, appropriate corrective actions were taken or were scheduled to be taken.
a.
IEC 79-08, Attempted Extortion - Low Enriched Uranium.
b.
IEC 80-02, Unclear Power Plant Staff Work Hours.
c.
IEC 80-14, Radioactive Contamination of Plant Demineralized Water System and Resultant Internal Contamination of Personnel.
9.
Exit Interview
-5-
-==%-1
The inspector met with licensee representatives (denoted in Paragraph
,
1) at the conclusion of the inspection August 13, 1980 and summa-rized the scope and findings of the inspestion activities. The licensee acknowledged the inspector's remarks as follows:
The apparent items of noncompliance.
a.
b.
The need to update the procedure systems and procedures.
c.
The need to update the RSC charter.
d.
Since outside auditors have not been obtained, the need for the RSC to more actively audit the reactor operations.
The need to revise check sheets to include records of the e.
required reactor interlock tests.
-6-l