IR 05000187/1978003
| ML20062F012 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000187 |
| Issue date: | 10/30/1978 |
| From: | Carlson J, Johnson P, Sternberg D NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20062F000 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-187-78-03, 50-187-78-3, NUDOCS 7812130350 | |
| Download: ML20062F012 (4) | |
Text
i
.
.
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0!CilSSION ,
'
OFFICE OF INSPECIION AND ENFORCEMENT
REGION V
Report No. 50-187/78-03 D2cht No. 50-187 License N R-90 Safeguards Group Licta:se: Northrop Corporation - Research and Technology Center One Research Park Palos Verdes Peninsula, California 90274 Frcility Name: Northrop NOR Reactor (TRIGA MARK F)
Insp;ction at: Hawthorne, California In!p2ction conducte . October 12-13, 1978 It cetors: / c4 / 2,6[78 P. ohnspn, Reactor Inspector Date Signed
.
s- !%f n h J. D . arlson, Reactor Inspector Date Signed Date Signed Appr:vId By: o . 9 IO27!7N D. M. Sternberg. Chief, Rhd tor Projects Section 1, 6 ate Signed Reactor Operations and Nuclear Support Branch Summary:
Inspection on October 12-13,1978 (Report No. 50-187/78-03)
Areas Inspected: Operating and maintenance procedures; organization, logs, and records; review and audit; requalification program; surveil-lance; and experiments. The inspection involved 23 inspector-hours onsite by two NRC inspector Results: Of the six areas inspected, no deviations or items of non-compliance were found in four areas. One apparent item of noncompliance was identified in each of the remaining two areas (infractions -periodic maintenance on the pulse rod drive cylinder, Paragraph 4; and periodic licensed operator evaluations, Paragraph 5).
.
RV Form 219 (2)
7 812 3 g 9357 w .
. . _ . - .
l l
(
DETAILS 1. Persons Contacted
- Dr. W. J. Chalmers, Vice President and Manager, Research and Technology Center
- J. G. Adams, Acting Reactor Supervisor G. B. Cozens, Reactor Head
- Denotes those present at the exit intervie . Organization, Logs, and Records The facility organization of the TRIGA Mark F reactor was compared with Technical Specifications requirements. An Acting Supervisor had been assigned following departure of the Reactor Supervisor in April 1978. The licensee had delegated the authority to approve c
routine experiments to the Reactor Head,. as allowed by Technical Specifications, although this delegation was not done in writin The licensee stated during the exit intarview that the Reactor Head would be formally appointed to the position of Reactor Superviso A copy of the appointment letter was received by the Region V office on October 16, 197 Proper staffing during reactor operation was verified from operating record (The reactor is operated on Mondays and Tuesdays only, so observation of reactor operation during the inspection was not possible.) The following operating records were reviewed:
Console Log, 11/1/77 - 12/15/77 and 4/5/78 - 9/11/78 ~
Maintenance Log, November 77 - October 78 Console Recorder Chart, October 78 It was noted that the console recorder chart was not usable as a historical record without some difficulty, since the chart was not being dated or otherwise annotated except at the end of each rol The inspector stated that the licensee should consider some method of more clearly relating the chart to the console log. The licensee acknowledged the inspector's comment.
,
No deviations or items of noncompliance were identified.
!
3. Review and Audit The inspectors examined the minutes of the Corporate Radiation Committee (CRC) and Reactor Safeguards Subcommittee (RSS) meetings conducted since the previous inspection. The review included
I L
'
-2-consideration of meeting frequency, quorum, membership, and contents of the minutes. fio facility changes or new experiments had been reviewed by the CRC or RSS during 1977 or 197 No deviations or items of noncompliance were identifie . Surveillance The inspector reviewed surveillance procedures and records of completed surveillance to verify adequacy and conformance to the Technical Specifications. The Technical Specifications related parameters examined included: pulse reactivity, minimum reactor safety systems, pool conductivity, control and safety rod drop times, core temperature, bulk water temperature, exit water tem-perature, pulse rod drop time; excess reactivity, shutdown margin, and power level calibratio Contrary to the requirements of the Technical Specifications, the I periodic maintenance of the transient (pulse) rod drive cylinder was not performed in the required eight-month interval. The last documented aaintenance was performed on January 12, 1978. The licensee was advised during the exit interview that this item was in noncompliance with the Technical Specification . Requalification Training Discussions were held with licensed senior reactor operator Records of requalification training, including annual examinations, were examined to verify the program was being implemented in accordance with the program approved by the Commission. The in-spector discussed with the licensee an apparent lack of coordination of the Operator Requalification Training Program since the depar-ture of the previous Reactor Supervisor in April,1978. One example of this lack of coordination was the Acting Reactor Supervisor being unaware of the status of the current exams. Also, two items of noncompliance were identified during the inspection of the Operator Requalification Training Program: The periodic and systematic performance evaluations of licensed individuals by supervisory personnel had not been performed and documente The abnormal / emergency procedure review with licensed in-dividuals had not been documente The licensee was advised of these noncompliance items during the exit interview. The licensee acknowledged the noncompliance items and stated that improved coordination of the program would be provided by the appointment of a permanent Reactor Supervisor (as discussed in Paragraph 2).
. .m . . . _ . _ = _ _ _ _ _
-
!
- ' -3-
' Procedures l
The inspector reviewed the " Operating Instructions and Procedures for the Northrop Reactor, April 1971 - revised July 1973" for ,
scope, technical adequacy, and conformance to the Technical Specifi- l cations. The inspector also reviewed the licensee's administrative i records to verify that the procedures in.use were properly approved I and were the correct revisions. No procedure changes had been issued since the previous inspection.
No deviations or items of noncompliance were identified.-
- Experiments The licensee's experiment program since the beginning of 1978 was -
examined. Approximately 175 experiments had been authorized during this year, all involving irradiation of solid state devices under Routine Use (RU) Permit No.15 (authorizes irradiation of common l
'
non-fissionable non-explosive material). The inspector stated that
'(
'
the licensee should update RU No.15 to give the correct title of the individual authorized to approve routine irradiations (as
.
'
discussed in Paragraph 2 above). The review included discussion
,
with facility representatives of experiment approval, reactivity
,
effects, potential hazards, and radiological concerns. No new or unusual experiments were conducte No deviations or items of noncompliance were identifie . Independent Inspection Effort The inspectors toured the facility in company with licensee represen-tatives. The reactor pool, core and nucicar instrument arrangement, fuel storage racks, the fuel status t,oard, and general equipment
- conditions were exsmined.
i l No deviations or items of noncompliance were identified.
l Exit Interview
, .
An exit interview was conducted with licensee representatives (denoted in Paragraph 1) at the conclusion of the inspection. The i
inspector summarized the scope and findings of the inspection. The ( licensee made the following remarks in response to certain of the
! coments presented by the inspectors:
Stated that the Reactor Head was being assigned to the position
- of Reactor Supervisor, and noted that this should assure appropriate coordination of retraining and other activities at the reactor (Paragraph 2).
I Acknowledged the two items of noncompliance identified during the inspection (Paragraphs 4 and 5).
i
,
l .