IR 05000326/1980001
| ML19344F150 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | University of California - Irvine |
| Issue date: | 07/03/1980 |
| From: | Chaffee A, Faulkenberry B, Zwetzig G NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19344F137 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-326-80-01, 50-326-80-1, NUDOCS 8009120478 | |
| Download: ML19344F150 (5) | |
Text
-
.
.-
_..
.
.
a-
.
.
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
..s.
. OFFICE'0F IllSpECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
.
w:.
REGION V
Report No.
50-326/80-01 Safeguards Docket No.
50-326-License No.
R-ll6 Group-
,
Licensee:
University of California
'
' ? ~.j; Irvine. California 92717 g
Facility Name:
TRIGA Mark I
.
Inspection at:
Irvine, California Inspection conducted:
May 19 - 21,1980
.2
,
..h Inspectors:
M[c d ( 6 28/.
7h!7d l...
G.B.Zwetzl[, React'orInspector
' Date Signea
//
'
a9 (L/la.
,1,In
&
A. E. Chaffbe, Reactor Inspector Date Signed Y
4 0-7hl10
^y, Approved by: B. H. Faulkenberr, ChidD Reactor Projects Section 2, Date Signed
-__
p5 Reactor Operations nd Nuclear Support Branch
.4*,@
Summary:
Inspection on May 19-21,1980 (Report No. 50-326/80-01)
.....
.
""
Areas Inspected:
Routine, unannounced inspection of organization, logs and records; requalification program; review and audit; surveillance; experiments; and independent inspection. The inspection involved 28 inspector
_,..
_ 2.';
hours onsite by two NRC inspectors.
'
Resul ts:. Of the sip. areas inspected, no apparent items of noncompliance or deviations were identified in five areas;- two apparent items of noncompliance (Infractions-Failure of the Reactor Operations Committee to meet.and conduct quarterly reviews at required frequency, see paragraph 3) were identified in one area.
.
J IE:V Form 219 ( ).
.800.9130s g t'
.
.
..
.
...
.
.
.
..
.
.
-,
..
.
..
.
,
.
.
DETAILS
.
1.
_P_ersons Contacted
- Dr. F. S. Rowland, Reactor Admin 4trator
- Dr. G. Miller, Reactor Supervisor P. Jerabek, Assistant Reactor Supervisor
- Denotes those attending the exit interview.
2.
Organization, Logs and Recards The inspector verified by discussions with the reactor supervisor that.the facility organization was as described by the technical specifications.
By letter dated October 9, 1979, the licensee had previously advised the NRC Region V Office that the position of campus " Radiation Safety Officer, which had been filled on an interim basis' during the inspection of May 9-10, 1979, had been filled by a permanent appointment.
The inspector also verified by observation that staffing during operation was provided as specified in the Facility Standard Operating Procedures.
The inspector reviewed, on a sampling basis, the following lugs and records to determine whether reactor operations were conducted in accordance with regulatory requirements:
Startup; Checklists (July 1979 - May 1980)
Reactor Shutdown Checklists (July 1979 - May 1980)
e Operations Log (July 1979 - May 1980)
Scrams and Unusual Event Log (July 1979 - May 1980)
Fuel Examination Records (November 1979)
Linear and Log Reactor Power Recorder Charts (April 1 - 15, 1980)
Radiation Survey Log (July 1979 - May 1980)
Based on the review of the above records, no items at variance with regulatory. requirements were. identified.
The inspector also reviewed the mechanical maintenance log and the radiation siJrvey log and verified that the following maintenance tasks had been completed as required by the facility technical specifications:
50P Sec. 4.7.3.d.
Transient Rod-Air Systems S0P Sec. 4.7.4.
Ventilation System Checks S0P Sec. 4.7.6.
Pool Water Level ~ Alarm E
S0P Sec. 4.8.1.
Area Monitor System S0P.Sec. 4.8.2.
Continuous Air Monitor Maintenance No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
--
_
..
k
c
.
j
~
. -
_
r-
? _
.
-
,
y
, v.. -
.
2--
-..
...
.
.
- .
,
3.
-Review ind Audit
,
-
The minutes and' records of tha' Reactor Operations. Committee were
.
'
examined.1 Technical' Specification 6.2.f. states that "The comittee.
lsnall meet-at least quarterly." Contrary to this requirement, it was..found:that the' committee had not met during the following -
periods: ~ April 24, 1979 - November 7, 1979, a period greater than 6 months;' October 12, 1978 - March 21, 1979, a period greater than 5 mo'nths;- October 5,1977 - Apr11f 24,1978, a period greater.than
. 6 months; ~ July 7,1976; : March 8. -1977, a period greater than-
-
- 8 months; and February 5,1976 - July 7,1976,.a period greater than 5 months.-
Further. record review.showed that the licensee had been issued notices of violation' regarding Technical ~ Specification 6.2.f. on July-24, 1973 and on June 4, 1970.
In addition, the licensee o
identified further: noncompliance in.this area in a ~1etter to the-NRC. dated March 9,1977. This repeated failure to conform to i
Technical Specification 6.2.f. is of increasing concern and is identified as an item of apparent noncompliance.
,
!
.This examination also looked into the reviews performed by the
Reactor Operations Committee.. Technical Specification 6.2.b.4.
states that "The responsibilities of the comittee include, but are i
not limited-to, the following:... Review of the operation and
- -
operational records of the facility."
[
Technical Specification'.6.2.d. states in part, "The committee shall
^
have a written statement defining such matters as. the authority of
- the committee,... and other such administrative provisions as are required for effective functioning of the comittee."
~
.Section 3.4'of the-Department of Chemistry, University.of California p
LIrvine..Huclear Reactor Facility, Standard Operating Procedure, which is required to be written by Technical Specification 6.2.d.,
,
specifies in fulfillment of Technical Specification 6.2.b.4. "The p
comitteeLwill review reactor operations at leart quarterly..."
-Contrary to the above requirements, the records reviewed showed only -the; following quarterly reviews to.have-been completed since December 28, 1977:. March.12, 1980;. January 7,.1980; and July 5,1978.
j.
'This.is identified as an. item:of apparent noncompliance.
.
4.:
Requalification Program i-
..
The inspector ' examined operating records and verified that all of p
Lthe currently licensed. operators have-been actively engaged in--
L
- reactor ope' ration;-- Thelinspector also examined the training records to verify;that they contained copiesLof each individuals = annual
-
- . examinations ~, documentation'of performance of required manipulations-L
,
r
<
- .
-
.
t
,
,-
_
-
..
-* * -
~
~
_..
L i
o xc
.,
b
.
..
'
-3-
"
.
.
,
L
,
.
(either in the, files or in the operations log) records of observations and evaluations of the operators, and records of attendance at required lectures. A program of regularly scheduled seminars i
appeared to fulfill the requirement for review of changes in the facility, facility procedures and/or regulatory requirements.
The inspector emphasized the importance of -this seminar series in meeting the requirements of the requalification program.
The inspector noted similarities between the annual examinations as administered from one year to the' next.
Comp 3rison of the 1979 examination with the examination given in 1980 indicated that two
,
of the ten parts of the test had been completely revised for 1980.
Since there is no-explicit requirement that the tests be revised
,
from year-to-year, the inspector concluded that the degree of revision represented.a reasonable effort to make the examination process meaningful.
fio items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
5.
Experiments
'
'
The experiments program has remained eu e;itially unchanged with no
" untried" experiments since the previous inspection.
The majority of experiments performed have been activation analysis irradiations for research and classroom laboratory assignments.
Each irradiation request reviewed was verified by a reactor operator to be consistent with the approved experiment methods prior to irradiation in the reactor.
fio items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
6.
Sur'veillance periodic calibration of instruments, reactivity measurements, control rod measurements, and safety system tests have been per-formed by the licensee. A review of.the facility records verified that the required calibrations and tests had been performed con
_
sistent with the technical. specification requirements.
The following calibration / surveillance requirements were reviewed in detail to verify technical f.dequacy and frequency of performance.
a.
Control Ro(c Worth Measurements b.
Control Rod Drop Time Measurements c.
Power Level Calorimetric
,
d.
Fuel Temperature Measurement e.
Control Ro'd Visual Inspection f.
Fuel Element Visual Inspection.
l
--
-
..
i
I
v.
.
...
.
- _4
,
t,
.:
- *
.
lg.
Fuel Element Dimensional Measurements
.
!
No items'of. noncompliance or deviations-were ~ identified.
7.
Independent Inspection Effort
~
The inspectors witnessed facility operations, toured the. facility, and discussed experimental activation analysis with an operator.
The following' observations were made:
a.
Control room operators were knowledgeable of plant operating conditions and of experiments in progress.
The control room was manned in accordance with the Technical Specifications.
b.
Plant housekeeping was adequate.
c.
Plant equipment and systems appeared normal for the status of the' plant.
d..
A' sign warning against.the loss of loose articles in the' pool had been posted.
No icms of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
8.
Exit Interview The inspectors met with licensee representatives (denoted in Para-graph 1) at the conclusion of the inspection on May 21, 1980.
The inspectors summarized the scope and findings of the inspection.
,
'
The licensee representatives acknowledged problems in holding l
scheduled meetings of the Reactor Operations Committee in the past.
!
!
I l
!
e*
'
-
,.
--
M
$
r
,
_,.
. -,..
,
.m
.,
,3~.,__
....
.,, -,
,
.,
.