IR 05000326/1982001
| ML20052B229 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | University of California - Irvine |
| Issue date: | 04/14/1982 |
| From: | Willett D, Thomas Young NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20052B223 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-326-82-01, 50-326-82-1, NUDOCS 8204300191 | |
| Download: ML20052B229 (6) | |
Text
.
-
,
.
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0fHISSION h
-
REGION V
Report flo.
50-326/82-01 Docket flo.
50-326 License No.
R-116 Safeguards Group
.icensee:
University of California Irvine. California 92717
.
Facility Name:
Research Reactnr - TRTGA Mark i Inspection at:
Trvine. California Inspection conducted: March 23-24. 19A2 Inspectors m'
f ' /J ' M2
[D. J. Will[t, Reactor Inspector Date Signed Date Signed Approved by:
M
r Reactor Operations (, Projects [wrdathoac/ p Project SectE n 2 Date Signed Tolbert Young, Jr Chief, t Summary:
Inspection on March 23-24, 1982 (Report No. 50-326/82-01)
Areas Inspected: Routine, unannounced inspection of facility organization, logs and records; mqualification training; procedures; surveillances; review and audit; experiments; and independent inspection.
The inspection involved 18 inspector-hours onsite by one NRC inspector.
Results:
Of the eight areas inspected, three (3) items of noncompliance were identified, within two (2) of the areas, t
,
l 820430oliI RV Form 219 (2)
_
.
-
.
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted
- Dr. F. S. Rowland, Reactor Administrator
- Dr. G. E. Miller, Reactor Supervisor
>
F. Dekeyser, Graduate Student
- Denotes those attending the exit interview.
2.
Organization, Logs and Records Except for the appointment of Mr. Herbert Bair as part time Triga. facility radiation safety technician, the organization, structure, and personnel responsible for the operation and administration of the Irvine TRIGA reactor facility were essentially unchanged from that previously reported.
For the past year, Mr'. Bair has proportioned his time between the TRIGA facility and the University Radiation Safety Office. Mr. Bair's duties and talents fill a need and provide a significant resource for the TRIGA facility.
Through discussions with licensee representatives and an examination of facility records, the inspector found that the qualification levels of licensee personnel, including members of the reactor operations committee were consistent with the technical specification requirements.
Plant operations since January 1980 were reviewed by the inspecter.
This examination included discussions with facility personnel and a review of facility operation and maintenance logs to document the performance of operational and maintenance activities consistent with administrative and regulatory requirements.
Selected portions of the following were examined:
Operations Log Books Maintenance Log Monthly Maintenance and Inspection Sumaries Daily Reactor Checklists - Startup/ Shutdown Scram and Unusual Events Log Radiation Survey Log During review of the-Reactor Operations Log Book, the inspector noted that entries for June 8, 1981, record that facility personnel, after moving fuel into the F-Ring, brought the reactor critical at about 1.5 watts with the Adjustable' Transient Rod (ATR), Fast Transient Rod (FTR) and shim fully withdrawn. With the regulating rod at position 30, a core excess reactivity of $3.75 was entered into the log book.
The reactor was shutdown and a graphite element was removed from the core. The reactor was then brought critical to approximately 1.5
.
-
.
..
%
-2-watts as before and a core excess of $3.12 was recorded.
The reactor was shutdown and a graphite element was removed as before.
The reactor was then brought critical as before and a core excess of $3.03 was recorded.
The reactor was shutdown and additional corrections made to achieve a core configuration with less than $3.00 excess reactivity.
The inspector noted that prior to the original fuel movement core excess reactivity was recorded at $2.90. (82-01-01)
Log entries and discussions with the Reactor Supervisor confirm that facility personnel did not notify the Reactor Supervisor after the first core excess of greater than $3.00 was recorded and adequate corrective action was not made. Additionally, a report and analysis was never submitted to the Reactor Operations Committee and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission was not notified as required. (82-01-02)
Standard Operating Procedures Section 4.1.5.B states that, "The excess reactivity worth of the reactor core shall be measured or estimated and recorded in the reactor log book before and after any change that may affect the reactivity of the core." This estimate and entry was not recorded prior to fuel movement.
(82-01-03)
3.
Review and Audit The licensee's review and audit activities since the last inspection (May 1980) were reviewed by the inspector.
This examination included discussions with licensee management and a review of selected portions of the following specific records:
Reactor Operations Comnittee (ROC) Minutes.
ROC and Subcommittee Audits Annual Report Standard Operating Procedures (SOP)
Technical Specifications Changes to the facility design and to facility procedures were found to have been completed consistent with the criteria of 10 CFR 50.59.
The inspector expressed the concern that the training and requalification program was not currently one of the ROC's areas of audit and that there are no formal criteria for the ROC outlining:
a.
ROC authority and responsibility in resolving and documenting open items / audit findings.
b.
Specific area of audit and associated schedule, c.
Criteria for conduct of audits.
s w
...,
-3-The licensee has committed to revise the Standard Operating Procedures (S0Ps) to include the training and requalification program as a ROC audit area and to address the ROC audit function in greater detail by the end of the third quarter of 1982.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
4.
Experiments The inspector examined selected irradiation requests and experiments.
The inspector verified by review of records and discussions with facility personnel that the experiments were reviewed and approved by the Reactor Operations Conmittee as required.
No new experiments have been approved since the last inspection.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
5.
Operator Requalification Program The licensee's operator requalification program was reviewed against the requirements of 10 CFR 55 and the approved operator requalification program.
The inspector reviewed the training files for each reactor operator and verified that the licensee had implemented the requalification program for licensed operators.
The files contained records of examinations, reactivity manipulations, evaluations, and other activities as described in the requalification program.
Dr. Miller's license has expired. The licensee has exprest,ed concern that the NRC has not responded to requests for Dr. Miller's renewal and has placed the matter on indefinite hold.
The licensee has committed to~ expanding the requirements of the training and requalification program to place additional emphasis on the facility-and technical specification administrative requirements.
Additionally, the licensee has~ conveyed to the inspector his intent to distribute
.
the Reactor Operations Committee meeting' minutes, audits, and' reports to the. facility personnel and in particular to the licensed operators to document and-assure that personnel are informed of changes to the facility, procedures, policies, and design changes. These commitments are to be completed by the end of the third quarter of 1982.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identifie.
..,
,
-4-6.
Procedures The inspection included an examinstion of the licensee's operating procedures for technical adequacy and for compliance with regulatory requirements.
Procedures reviewed were those associated with reactor startup and steady state operation, reactor shutdown, and conduct of experiments.
Except as noted below, a walk-through of selected procedure check lists verified that they would accomplish their intended purposes.
The exception relates to S0P 4.5, " Installation or Removal of Reactor Core Components," which does not appear to satisfy the intent of Technical'
Specifications, Section 6.3.
This is because S0P 4.5, Section 4.5.1.F, is not explicit in defining or providing detailed method specific calculations to assure adequate technical specification margins are maintained.
The licensee has connitted to a review of the S0Ps and, as appropriate, incorporating detailed explicit instructions. Additionally, the licensee has committed to placing all facility documentation on a two-year review cycle.
The licensee conveyed his intent, to the inspector, to require written authorization from the appropriate management prior to any fuel shuffling /
addition and to place the fuel handling tool under the supervision of the reactor supervisor so that he would be cognizant of any such activities.
These commitments are to be completed by the end of the third quarter for 1982.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
7.
Surveillance The inspector examined selected surveillance activities and records to verify completion as required by technical specifications, and to determine if facility operation was consistent with limiting conditions for operation.
The inspector reviewed tests and instructions that are part of the l
l surveillance program and expressed the following concerns that:
i a.
In general, maintenance / surveillance of safety and safety-related systems should be authorized, have a review of the activity, and verified as satisfactory.
l b.
Personnel who perform an activity, maintenance, surveillance, etc.,
shall be identified so that a determination can be made as to j
their qualifications and traceability of work done.
i L
,
...,
,
-5-The licensee has committed to identify personnel with activities and to generate a maintenance / surveillance authorization request fonn.
This form will provide: A description of work to be completed; an evaluation and authorization by the appropriate management, description of the work completed and who did work; and a final review and verification of the activity by the appropriate management.
Additionally, all ongoing and recent previous maintenance / surveillance activities will be reviewed prior to commencing any new activities, to insure that personnel are aware and that different activities will not conflict. These commitments are to be completed by the end of the third quarter for 1982.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
8.
Independent Inspection
.The inspector walked throughout areas of the facility to inspect the general state of housekeeping and to verify that monitoring instrumentation was reading or recording, as necessary.
No unusual fluid leak or piping vibrations were observed.
Through a review of facility records and touring the facility, the inspector noted that a great deal of attention, time, and materials has been expended on upgrading, modernizing, and testing the security system. Additionally, the fire protection / alarm system and control of materials and combustibles appeared satisfactory.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
9.
Exit Interview The inspector met with licensee representatives (denoted in paragraph 1)
at the conclusion of the inspection on March 24, 1982. The scope and findings of the inspection were discussed and summarized as set forth in paragraphs 2 through-8.
.
E