ML20116E790

Ack Receipt of NRC Re Recent Insp of Reactor Facilities & Procedures

ML20116E790
Person / Time
Site:	Reed College
Issue date:	06/06/1988
From:	Bragdon P REED COLLEGE, PORTLAND, OR
To:	Jonathan Montgomery NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V)
Shared Package
ML20116E723	List: ML20116E764 ML20116E770 ML20116E790 ML20116E802 ML20116E804 ML20116E814
References
FOIA-92-35 NUDOCS 9211100022
Download: ML20116E790 (1)

Text

-- - .

n E r o c o i i. t c, t A tage

.@ f EO sc I ',1

<,,u, .,

l ii l I k l . 'l 4 '

AIO : y June 6, 1988 Mr. James L. Montgomery, Chief Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards Branch U.S. Nuclear Regalatory Commission Region V 1450 Maria Lane, Ste. 210 Walnut Creek, CA 94596-5368

Dear Mr. Montgomery:

Thank you for your letter of May 25 concerning your recent inspection of Reed's Reactor facilities and procedures. I am very p. lea gd to note that there were no violations or deviations not6d.

Si c re ,

Pa 1 1 r d Pres'iden h

cc: M. Cronyn L. Ruby

," 3 k/\

v ,

i I

\ . s

() { } c) M-

'?211100022 PDR FOIA 920414 I 7 COLD 92-35 ppg

,, s s .. . . . . . , . . .. . , .. a s . . .. . , . ., c .. . , , ,, ,# ,,,,,.,=o 7,.,. ... - m . p,

l i

UNITED STATES

/p n og*%' ,i E\ NUCLEAR RECULATORY COMMISSION

$ REGION V

', { 4

, 1450 MARIA LAtlE,SU11 F 210

. 9, WALNUT CREEK. CALIFORNIA v4596

% [

Docket No. 50-288 ,11tkl()Q1Q$

Reed College Portland, Oregon 97202 Attention: Dr. Paul Bragdon, President Gentlemen:

Subject:

Examination Report On May 17 - 19, 1988 the NRC administered examinations to members of your college who had applied for a license to operate your Reed Reactor Facility.

At the examination exit meeting on May 20, 1988, the examination process and associated licensing issues were discussed with those members of your staff identified in the enclosed report.

In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790(a), a copy of this letter and enclosures (1) and (2) will be placed in the NRC's Public Document Room. The results for the individual applicant are exempt from disclosure by 10 CFR 2.790(a)(6).

Therefore, enclosure (3) will not be placed in the NRC's Public Document Room.

Should you have any questions concerning this examination, please contact Mr. Thomas Meadows at (415) 943-3867.

Sincereiy,

- /-

sobert J. Pa e, Chief WN Reactor Safety Branch

Enclosures:

1. Examination Report No. 50-288/0L-88-02 (w/ Attachments A and B, and Facility Comments)

2. Examinations and Answer Keys (SR0/R0)

3. Grade Summary Report cc w/ enclosures (1), (2) and (3):

Mike Pollock, Associate Director, Reed Reactor Facility cc w/ enclosure (3) only:

Janet Lanning, Management Assistant, NRR/LOLB cc w/ enclosure (1) cnly:

,1. Hannon, Branch Chief, OLB J. Martin, RV D. Kirsch, RV J. Elin, RV T. Meadows, RV M. Cillis, RV E I

~-

Y

{ iji_.'eIibd 7 H. North, RV 3 L

H. Berkow NRR/PDSNP /

R. Cross, RV (2 copies) '

i

)h '

4 h'

a

-cc w/ enclosures (1) and (2) only:

RSB/ Document Control Desk (RIDS)

Enclosure (1)

U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION Y EXAMINATION REPORT Examination Report No.: 50-288/0L-88-02 Facility Licensee: Reed Reactor Facility Reed Colleoe Portland, Oregon 97202 Facility Docket No.: 50-288 facility License No.: R-112 Examinations administered at Reed College, Portland, Oregon Chief Examiner: I --e X e' .~~ - < ~ - </e///?

Thomas R. Meadows Date Signed Approved by: _

/_ @

Joy O. Elin, Chief, Operations Section (Tape 5ighed-Sumary:

Written examinations were administered to six (6) R0 candidates and one (1) SR0 candidate on May 17, 1988. The operating examinations were administered May 18-19, 1988. The SR0 candidate passed all portions of the examination.

Three (3) R0 candidates passed all portions of their examinations. Two (2) R0 candidates failed their respective written examinations, while passing the operating portion of the examination. The other R0 candidate failed all portions of the examination.

Y G3)JU3-4%D#

_ _ ___ _ _ _ . . _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _.m l

~'

REPORT DETAILS ,

}

1. Examiners:  :

Thomas Headows, RV, Chief Examiner  ;

Leo Defferding, PNL

, 2. Persons Attending the Exit Meeting:

NRC: $

T. Meadows, RV Reed:

M. Pollock, Associate Director, Reed Reactor Facility Paul 1erdal, Senior-Reactor Operator- ,

(Supervisor,ReedReactorFacility) -

David Griffiths, Physics Professor (ROC Chairman)

3. Written Examination and Facility Review:

Written examinations were administered at Reed College on May 17, 1988.

At the conclusion of the examination, copies of the R0 and SR0 examinations and associated keys were provided to Mr. M. Pollock, Associate Director, P.eed Reactor Facility to coordinate the licensee's- ,

formal review. .The R0 examination was reviewed ty Mr. Pollock, while the SRO examination was reviewed by both Mr. Pollock and Mr. Terdal of-the Facility staff. -On May 20, 1988 the Chief. examiner met with the Facility reviewers to consider the' Facility comments that resulted from their review.

The review comments were endorsed by the ViceIPresidcnt/ Provost, Dr. Marshall Cronyn, and subsequently forwarded to Region V._ This~

document is included in this- report along with _the NRC _ resolutions of ,

these comments- for both the SR0 and R0 examinations, respectively.

(Attachments A and B). The SR0 and R0 master. examination keys _were  ;

revised, as described in Attachments A and B to;this.repoit, prior to  ;

grading-the candicates. responses.

4. Operating Examination:

The_ operating examinations were administered May'18-19,_1988.- An improvement'in the licensees operatir.g procedures, primarily SOP's L70-and 71 (Completing the Weekly- and-Dimonthly Checklist); reflected in -

the overall ,mproved performance of the Reactor Operator candidates.

during equipment theirlocation oral examinations.'

and operation .The candidates .were more -familiar with - ,

4

?

m , w ,. 4J.;a- .w ----,_-.,,,L.- - w , w;- . , , _.-e .. - . _ . - - _ - . . . . .--. - - - -

Hnwever, it was also noted that many of the Facility's procedures still have not been upgraded since the last replacemert examination cycle.

For example, 50P 01, "The Star' UP Check List", is not a checklist at all, it reads like an academic text book that duplicates material covered in the Administrative Procedures, Health Physics Procedures, and Technical Specifications. The examination team noted that none of the candidates referred to this procedure during the actual reactor startups performed in the course of the examinations. This in itself is not contrary to safe operatir.g techniques at a research facility, but does reflect on the inefficacy of some of Reed's procedures.

In the course of an oral examination, during an actual reactor startup on May 18, 1988, the Reed Reactor Facility experienced an actual " Station Blackuut". Due to a rain storm and associated high winds all incoming electrical power was lost. The only lights that were available in the Reactor Facility came from emergency battery powered lanterns positioned in the reactor bay and exit corridor. All power was removed from the operating console and the control rods imediately dropped into the reactor core as designed. However, the Chief Examiner noted that the only licensed operator on shift (the SRO) imediately left the control room area to check the major electrical supply breaker in the Chemistry building (Room 7). It took approximately 15 minutes for the $R0 to return to the reactor bay and actually verify the control rods inserted. Although this action was not contrary to Reed's Emergency Plan, it would seem good practice to verify the reactor shut down before leaving the reactor area.

5. Exit Meeting:

At the conclusion of the site visit on May 20, 1988 th? Chief Examiner met with representatives of the plant staff to discuss the examination.

Attachment A ,

Page 1 of 2 NRC Resolutions of the Licensee Examination Review of the May 17, 1988 SRO Written Examination, at Reed College.

Question. H.04 Comment:

See the attached Licensee's comment on Question H.04 Resolution: Comment accepted.

After reviewing the new documentation supplied by the Licensee with their attached formal comments, the examiner agrees that answers "b" or "c" could be plausible answers. However, two (2) correct answers in a four (4) part multiple choice question reduces the knowledge determinant to a mere 50 %

probability, therefore, this question is eliminated. The Examination and Answer Key have been appropriately adjusted.

Question 1.15 Comment:

See the Attached Licensee's comment on Question I.15.

Resolution: Comment accepted.

The licensee points out that the Eberline E-140 could be used with a scintillation detector designed to cperate at 900 volts. Although this is not the case at Reed, the examiner agrees that '+ is plausible. Therefore, the examiner agrees with the licensee'( corment. However, two (2) correct answers in a four (4) part multiple choice qtestion reduces the knowledge determinant to a mere 50% probability. This is nit acceptable, therefore, this question is eliminated. The Examination end Aiswer Key have been appropriately adjusted.

Question L.01(c)

Comment:

See the Attached Licensee's comment on Question L.01( 1.

Resciution: Comment accepted.

The Licensee points out that the Reactor Health Physicist is "'n practice" an "ex-of ficio, non-voting member of the RRC. The justification for this-is given in the description of the Health Physicist duties, in accordance with Reed's Administrative Procedures. Commensurate with this documentation

~ _ , . . _

l l

i 1

i Attachment A Page 2 of 2 clarification, the examiner agrees with the Facility comment and will also accept " Health Physicist" as a valid answer for Question L.01(c). However, the total question worth will remain 1.0 point. The examination KEY has been modified per this evaluation.

Question L.01(d)

Comment:

See the attached licensee's comments on Question L.01(d).

Resolution: Comment not accepted.

The facility Administrative Procedures are vague and confusing, subsequently-open to various " interpretations". Consequently, the question STEM does not directly quote the reference material. Therefore, it is not appropriate to say that the licensee's procedures were " misquoted". The examiner believes that the wording in the stem of the question clarifies the intent of the Referenced Procedures (and Technical Specifications), and subsequently makes the answer key response the only plausible answer.

4 6

i V

,, +, e .- -- -.e', , , , , -.y. . , - . . . , - , ,, --

J l

Attachment B Page 1 of 1 NRC Resolutions of the Licensee Examination Review of the May 17, 1988 R0 Written Examination, at Reed College .

puestionA.08 Comment:

See the Attached Licensee's Comment on Question A.08.

Resolution: Comment accepted.

After reviewing the new documentation supplied by the Licensee with their attached formal comments, the examiner agrees _that answers "b" or "c" could be plausible answers. However, two (2) correct answers in a four (4) part multiple choice questien reduces the knowledge determinant to a mere 50%

probability. This is not acceptable, therefore, this question is eliminated.

The Examination and Answer Key have beer appropriately adjusted.

Question b.03(a)

Comment:

See the attached Licensee's comment on Question D,^1.

Resolution: Comment accepted.

Although no supporting documentation was supplied by the Licensee, the examiner agrees with the Licensee's comment justification. The R0 candidates are college freshmen and sophomores and have no formal electrical-dynsinics training. Therefore, question 0.03(a) has been deleted from the examination and examination key.

Question E.02 Comment:

See the attached Licensee's :omment on Question E.02.

L Resolution: Comment not accepted.

The examiner understands that the setpoints for boch the CAM and PAM must be changed to accommodate changes in dctector'efff-iency and sampling flow rates.

However, since no new documentation was sent to suppoet the licensee's comment justification and the fact that the R0 candidates must be familiar with the supplied Licensee's Emergency. plan, the examiner believes that the question is j valid. The question will remain unchanged.

1

(

REED COLLEGE g yfpOregon 9po

. usm *'

azAc7sm FActLITY

_. 8814AY31 P1 : 03 24 May 1988 Robert J. Pate. Chief Reactor Safety Branch ,

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1450 Maria Lane, Suite 210 Walnut Creek, California 94596-5368 ,

Re: Licensing examination conducted by Mr. Tom Meadows at this site on 16 20 May 1988. Docket 50-288, License R-112.

Dear Mr Pate:

I have reviewed and approved of the attached letters from Lawrence Ruby, Reactor Director, and J. Michael Pollock, Associate Di:ector, concerniag the examination given by Mr. Meadows.

Sincerely, k-  %

Marshall Cronyn Vice President / Provost

. _ - - . _. . .