IR 05000326/1989001
| ML20248D753 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | University of California - Irvine |
| Issue date: | 09/26/1989 |
| From: | North H, Wenslawski F NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20248D741 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-326-89-01, 50-326-89-1, NUDOCS 8910040388 | |
| Download: ML20248D753 (12) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:7 - 8 m y 4
' ; , ,-
z y,1-s
.
] ,
-
T
'
#
,
th S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION -
, .
.~ ~
'
<
'
, REGION V ,
!
33 +
'
-
<
.!
Rh ,
h y 1ReportNo. 50-326/8'9-01 , 1
,
i Docket No. 50-326=.
, ..
l
,
License No. R-116
'
Licensee: University of California at Irvine Irvine, California 92717 Facility Name: Research Reactor-TRIGA Mark I Inspection at: Irvine, California Inspection Conducte : August 28 ~,1, 1989 Inspector: 1 9/zf/U H. 5 North, Sen' r Rad 7 tion Specialist Date' Signed n s/
-kM/ff
'
Approved by: -[[. [b
,
F. A. Wenslawski, Chief Date Signe Facilities Radiological Protection Section Summary:
> Inspection on August 28-31', 1989 (Report No. 50-326/89-01) # ' Areas Inspected: Routine unannounced. inspection by a regionally based , inspector, of the reactor. operations program; including reactor operations, health physics, emergency planning and preparedness, transportation activities, follow-up items and exit intervie Inspection procedures 30703, 40750, 86740, 90713, d'702 and 92717 were addresse Results: In the six artas inspected, three violations were identified:
Failure to follow procedures required by the Technical Specifications concerning review of maintenance records (see report section 3.h.); Failure to conduct Reactor Operations Committee meetings at the frequency required by
.the Technical Specifications (see report section 3.c.); Failure to implement the operator and senior operator requalification program contistent with the requirements of 10 CFR 50.54(1-1), (see report section 3.J.). Overall, the licensee conducts a program capable of meeting their safety objective s i t
=
Q
, - = _ . [ ..x
m4 m- - - --- - - - - - =
'7< .g
-- ~~ -
-
aw , , .
. . . ,
-
a
- '
_j1 _,' , a;n ,e .;c
*
.
-
-
.
.
.
; r- -
,.
A ~
: \ ^
DETAILS;
~
' '
-
j
-
L
-
-
'
~
i Persons' Contacted s
,
1 *Dr?.V. P., Guinn,_ Professor'of. Chemistry (Emeritus), Chairman; Reactor;
.
y
'
a~ ' : Operations, Committee:(ROC).
' *Dr. G. E.s Miller,f Senior Lecturer in-Chemistry, Reactor Supervisor,- y .
*. . ~'1: >
W l'; Senior Reactor.0perator (SRO),=Membe'r; ROC, .
' *Mr.'J. - G. Tripodes, ' Associate Director of Environmental Health and .
J . Safety:(EH&S),. Member ROC k :*Mr. F. E. Gs11agher III, Manager Health Physics Section, EH&S, Member
' ROC.
p < Dr. P.1 J2l Rogers, Lacturer in Chemistryr Assistant Reactor Supervisor, p, . <SRO, Member. ROC. , '
.
n p *Ms. K. Swift, Assistant Hazardous Materials Technician, EH&S, former
.
reactor health, physics technician-s s'< %, .
'Mr. T. Crofoot,- Ph? D.~ Candidate, Reactor Operator (RO), part time
.
'
.
,
-'
- reactor' radiation protection technician -
k, ' L
' , '
'
* DenotesEthose;in'ividualsfatt'ending
.
d the exit interview on August 31,
; ,, 198 . < ,
c ,
-
L2. 7 Foilow-up on Items of Noncompliance (92702) i , As a Resbit of the inspection conducted January 27-29, 1988,-. Inspection, z Report NoC 50-326/88-01, the licensee was cited for-matters associated-Lwith the; failure to' follow procedures:as required by Technical -
., . Specification (TS) Section 6.3 and failure to implement the emergency-plan as required by 10 CFR 50.54(q). It?was' verified that the licensee'
~
hadl accomplished the corrective. actions' associated.with the implementation-of the emergency; pla It was noted however that matters; previously identified, related to-
; failure to adhere to. procedural requirements, had been repeated ~during '
the period following the last' inspectio These matters are addressed;in
-
. Report;Section' >' Reactor Operations (40750)-
' General The inspection disclo' sed that reactor operations were consistent
,
with-the licensee's annual reports of 1988 and 198 At the time of the inspection the annual report for the period July 1, 1988, to June 130, 1989, had not been submitted. The annual report for 1989;. dated September-1 1989, was received and reviewed
~by Region V on September 5, 1989, after the date of the inspectio "
The-inspector discussed the delay in issuing the report with the licensee at'the time of the inspection.
p , 1-h
+
_, _ _ _ _ = _ _ _ -
m 7 ;= , 3 -1
. - - - - - - - - -
- -- - -
-
~ '
,e
,
,
- .
9'; ..".
, - - '
12-
w ,
,
a- ,
- /S b. ' Organization'
f & ' The TRIGA reactor. is operated as a part of the Department-of
, Chemistry. The organizational structure was described by the w ' licensee'sf representative as follows: -
y _ The Regents of the University of California
^ Executive Vice Chancellor- Dr. Chang-Lin Tie Dean'of Physical Sciences-Dr. H. W. Moore , Chemistry Department Chairman-Dr. M. C. Caserio .
Professor of Chemistry, Reactor Adininistrator-Dr. F. 5. Rowland Senior Lecturer in Chemistry, Reactor Supervisor-br.' G. E. Miller , ..
(SRO)
E Lecturer.in Chemistry-Dr. P. J. Rogers (SRO) Ph.D. Candidate-Mr. T. Crofoot (RO) Ph.D. Candidate-Mr. T. Nottke.(R0 trainee) L The Reactor Operations Committee at the time c/ the inspection included the following members:
'
Dr. V.P. Guinn, Chairman, Professor =of Chemistry (Emeritus) Dr. F. S. Rowland, Reactor Administrator, Professor of Chemistry Dr. G. E. Miller, Reactor Supervisor,-(SRO) Dr. P. J. Rogers, SRO Mr. J. G. Tripodes, Associate Director of EH&S Mr. F. E. Ga11ager, Campus Radiation Safety Officer, EH&S' Dr. J. P. Jones, Radiological Sciences Department, Medical School Dr. J. L. Redpath,. Professor of R6diological Science Dr. V.-A. Apkarian, Professor of Chemistry L Dr. H. W. Sobel, Senior Researcher, Physics Department '- Mr. T. Crofoot, RO, Ph.D. Candidate, part time radiation protection ! technicia Discussion with the licensee's representative established that the previous lack of support for the reactor operations program had been partially alleviated through increased secretarial assistance, however, this support alone did not fully resolve the concern. The
-
two SRO's carry the operational and administrative responsibilities for the' reactor facility, in addition'to their normal academic responsibilities, as collateral dutie This concern has been previously identified in Inspection Reports 50-326/85-01 and 50-326/88-0 The licensee's organization was consistent with the requirements of
,. ' TS Noiviolations or deviations were identifie m Review and Audit '
s s TS 6.2 Review, requires that the ROC review reactor. operations to assure that the reactor is operated in a manner con'sistent with the
. ,
public nealth and safety. Further, certain responsibilities are
+
ass gned tc the ROC, a minimum membership is specified, a written i f'
-;
J _.__ ___________________w
~
B M' [ . ' ' '
'
' '
M _@ ,
.
y -- ,
,
f#, . , ' ji?
'
>
-3- -
577 ,
. -
s 4 % , n 9l
. s JA .,~ .
-1 y; "
, , ;
UC statement defining the committees authority is required,.a quorum i ~
,i specified,cminutes and quarterly 1 meetings are require ,
"
f"e
'
y ' V The ROC minutes of meet sinc'e't'hef7ast inspection were examine *
. ,,
Meetings'were held on Ft uary 18, May 20, August 18, 1988, January -! JR 31,-March 14..and May, 11. 1989. The 1Gcensee reported by letter, to:
.
* >
'Ho
, s 7 'NRC; Region V, dated May.5, 1989, that the ROC failed t_o meet.during , ,
E 4 ti i period August 118,' 1988, to January 21, 1989, contrary to the - C requirements-of TS Section 6.2 f. The'1 P.ensee explained in the
, - '
' *l, '> letter reporting,this failure that reactor _ operations were: '
'
discontinue'd between December 13, 1988, ano January 18, 1989, for a variety of reasons and the scheduled. meeting was therefore postponed. The postponement was also due, in part,;to the' unavailability of. secretarial as'sistanc !
o; j J' , The review of-minutes established that a quorum was present at:the meetings that were: held. The' minutes included summaries of reports byJthe' Reactor Supervisor, four reports of EH&S inspections and' , records reviews, discussions of' operating events'and results of the"
'
emergency-plan drill. It was noted and confirmed in discussions with the licensee's representative that no new experiments were reviewed
' , ,
2 or conducted, that-no changes to the facility or Technical Specifications were proposed, that no potential unreviewed safety questions were considered and that revisions of the Standard-
'
' Operating Procedures (50P) were not ready for committee revie s
'
f' Failure-to. con' duct a quarterly meetings of the ROC is contrary to the' requirements of TS Section 6.2. (50-326/89-01-01)
'
-It is.noted thatLInspection Report No. 50-326/88-01, Report S m.,on 2.G. noted that a quarterly meeting of the ROC was not conducte during the period April 23, 1986, through October 13, 198 1
., Corrective cti3ns for Unusual Events and Occurrences On' June 26, 1989, the Reg Rod-failed to stop after-driving up. The licensee stated that.this had occurred before and had-been corrected
,
by replacement of the 220 ohm resistor in the drive current circui The resistor was replaced and rod control returned to norma The' inspector inquired if this failure was possibly due to a faulty
,
!
switch. The licensee replied in the negative and stated that the failure of the resistor was a recurrence of a previously identified proble The licensee's program appeared adequate to meet their safety objective , No violations or deviations were identifie e. -Experiments 1.s , L -The licensee's reviewed and approved experiments were examine '
*
Based on the' review and discussions with the licensee it was established that no new experiments were reviewed, approved or
. implemented since the last inspectio e n ,
p ' . ,.A w w -- 3 ,, _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - . . -
, .. - - _ _ _
- - _-- _, -- -__ . - _-_- - _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _
'
=4, ./
h u f. ' Site Tour l'
'
During the inspection the facility was: toured, including 'the control: and reactor rooms. It was noted that housekeeping was acceptable, s although the reactor room was'erowded with--experimental equipmen The' experimental equipment dio not intrude in.the space necessary-
-for the operation of the reactor. The inspector observed an SRO during the completion of the startup checklist, reactor startup, f loading the." lazy susan" for a four hour full power (250 kW)
e irradiation, approach to full power and removal of the~samplesLfrom R'-. Lthe irradiation facilit Good radiation ~ protection practices-were
' '
_use Radiation surveys'of the facility were performed'during the tour using an ion chamber survey instrument, NRC 015843, due for u - : calibration' October 18, 1989. No significant radiation levels were .' i identifie . Emergency Sys'tems
, '
i The Operator Monthly Maintenance record includes provisions for recording.the results of tests of.various alarm systems. The alarms
<
include a t.neral alarm system as_well as the. pool water level alarm
>
syste The. campus police department receives two different alarms, one a trouble' alarm initiated by a loss of pool water cnd a second-
*
intrusion alarm. The operator verifies the. proper funct.foning of these alarms and communicates with the police department to. verify the receipt of the alarms. In.the event of fire the alarm is received by the police department.who are responsible for calling the alarm _in to the county fire department. A review of the' records . established that the alarm systems were tested as require .The licensee's program in this area appeared adequate'to meet.their safety objectives. No violations or deviations were identifie Records Review The records examined included: ROC Minutes from February 18, 1988, to May 11,.1989.' The review included the file of material presented and the agenda for the August'22, 1989, meeting for which formal minutes had not -yet been prepare Log Main 3, which addressed maintenance for the period August 1987 to July 1989. The records for the period January 1988 through the date of the inspection were examine Log RAD V 7/14/87, addressed the radiation protection records since the date shown on the log. Record entries for the pe'riod January 1988 to' August 1, 1989,..were examine The~ records were maintained by the EH&S health physicist assigned to the reactor facilit The
> records documented the results of surveys, area and portal monitor calibrations, checks of fire safety door alarms, radioactive waste transfars, results of reactor pool water analysis, facility contamination survey results and continuous air monitor ,
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
__ . .
. . . ,
t n '
. ~5 - - , .'.
calibrations. The records wereLlegible and complete and where comparison was possible, consistent with the results'of surveys performed by the inspecto ' Computation Notebook titled Radioactive Waste,_ recorded the
< transfers of smail quantities of waste to the EH&S organization for-disposal under the State of California license. Disposals on February.18 and December 20, 1988, were documented with.the' isotope,. ; quantity and dat ~ '
Reactor Log Book XXV,~for the period May 14, 1987 to May 20, 1988 was examined for the period February 1 through May 20, 1988, and-Log XXVI, for the period April 4, 1988 to April 24, 1989, was examined for the period July 5 to December 13, 1988, and April 11 to April 24, 1589. The records were. legible and appeared complete.
H Rod d op-times, rod worth calibrations, and power calibrations
= - performed during the period July 5-6, 1988, were examine ]
p Corresponding Daily Startup Checklists and Reactor Shutdown Checklists'..for six randomly selected days of_ operation, were ' examined for the perio-f January 15 through June 9,1989. Tentative l core excess reactivities and shutdown margins were within the values "
,
specified in the T A power level chart recorder record dated April 4,1989 was examined. The chart did.not identify whether the date was the 7 beginning or'ending date of the chart. In addition after an examination of approximately 23 feet of the record it was found that
' > "
no notations of any kind had been made on the chart. There were no
', dates,. times or comments which could be used to identif,y any specific period of operation or anomalous record had such an indication been present. The value of including such information on
" s chart records was dis' cussed with the license Binder labeled MAINT, contained the completed forms entitled "VCI
Nuclear Reactor Facility, Operator Monthly Maintenance" and " Reactor
- ..
Semiannual Maintenance Summary". Records for the period February 1, 1988, through August 7,1989, were examined. It was noted that the Monthly Maintenance-record for September 1988, had not been signed by-the Assistant Reactor Supervisor, in addition the space marked," Checked by", had not been signed for the monthly records for August'through December 1988. Further the Semiannual Maintenance Summary had not been signed in the space marked," Checked by", for the documents dated July 7, 1988, and January 18, 1989. It is noted that the licensee's Standard Operating Procedurer (SOP) in Section 4.1 Reactor Operation states in part," Routine operations must comply. strictly with these procedures". In addition in Section 4.7.1 Maintenance Records the procedures specify that, "...a Monthly Summary Checklist of maintenance and test activities shall be completed. On this sheet shall be listed the last date of maintenance for each identified item. This list shall be checked and signed each month by the Assistant Reactor Supervisor, and reviewed by the Reactor Supervisor by the seventh working day. If this review has not been completed, reactor operation may not be
.
ar --- ---- _ i
-
__ ,- .- - _ _ -
.
. . .
*
..
.
.g
'
,
<
lg # *lh6y '
. e
'
e -Ql% ' ; ' 7
'
, ; ,
-
, , , .
I j ' f[.
-
s-t
*uOM 4 resumed'!. ; It' is noted that contrary to .the- licensee's procedures, . / reactor: operations had been resume i The procedure was ap' proved'and'
[ %j .f' issued in April 1982.1 It is further noted that a similar failure to ' ~'
.
h,ft C c ? ~a " '
<
follow procedures was-called.to the' licensee's-attention in a Notice
,1 -
of, Violation issued as a rissit..of the? inspection of January 27-29, ,"
, _ 4 198 ' . . . , ,s 7l On September 18^ 1989, the. Reactor Supervisor ~was. interviewed by itel ephone.- DurIng'theinterviewtheReactorSupervisor.statedthat'
$ l~X ,
.
he hadl reviewed ~the maintenance activities' documented in'the-s %, i maintenance' log, Main 3, for the periods of interest. He stated
-
,
.
.,
~
that this' review was-performed in lieu of-the review of the ..
,
,
# Honthly Summary Checklist and that since'the Checklist 1had not been 4_ ,
- reviewed it was not signe x ,
,,
- */he licensee was informed that the failure to follow procedures T , a related to the review and sign-off of maintenance records was an x . apparent violation of TS 6.3 Operating Procedures, which requires
,. .
-
/that," Written procedures, reviewed and. approved by the Reactor
>r ' Operations Committee, shall'be in effect and followed for..... "
: Maintenance procedures which could have an effection reactor ' "
safety". : This matter was discussed at thel exit intervie .,- (50-326/89-01-02). - s With the exception of the.above noted findings the li e nsee's-records-appeared adequate to meet their safety objective Procedures The' licensee's.proceduresarecontain'edinasingledocuNent
'
entitled Nuclear' Reactor Facility Standard Operating Procedures
'(50P). Various sections within the 50P1 indicate the dates of review
' ' and approval of the procedures bytthe' ROC. The dates-of' approval range from 1977 to 1987. (The SOP contains the following major topic headings: Introduction, Experiments,~ Personnel, Normal Operating Procedures, Radiological Safety Program, Emergency Procedures, Security Response Procedures and Appendices. In the 50P section
'
Nor a1 Operating Procedures.the inspector reviewed: ,4.1 Reactor
'
Operation; 4.1.1 General . Limitations; 4.1.2 Start-Up; 4.1.3 Routine;
%' Operation; 4.1.4 Shut-Down; 4.1.6 Abnormal Events; 4.1.6.a Restart Following Unscheduled Shut Down; 4.2 Reactor Log;'4.3-Reactor Power Calibration; 4.4 Reactor Control Rod Reactivity Worth Calibration;
, 4.7 Maint_enance and Testing of Reactor Systems; and sampled various
. portions"of ether procedure The licensee's procedures appeared adequate to meet their safety
, ' objectives. No violations or deviations were identifie $(' ' Requalification Training
, ,
- The licensee's Reactor Operator Requalification plan, a two page
"
do:ument, was dated February 20, 1974. An April 3, 1974, letter from the U. 5. Atomic Energy Commission, in response to the
' '
,
f , - licensee'~s February 20, 1974,. Reactor Operator Requalification ,
'
. .% .-
..
p 4 .
, <
gig % l_ , -
*
:)
'
yw ~,. - .,y \ _ _Y __
_ - - - - - - - -
,
. - -
,
-
-
.y -
-)
,'"
.
.
,
;. .? + -
,
'
f* ( s f , , . * ~ ' '
-
7 - 3 gu'- :
,
a' ' q , ,
,
je i)
*
,
'
; .
,
<
@ i program, requi. red the incorporation of the following: "1. That in 7 thelevent a licensed person does not perform satisfactorily on thei ,1 ' '
., * '
oral examination he will be required to participatetin an
~
,
~'
m , Accelerated training program to correct any: deficiency. 2.
c < -Establish a mechanism to assure your 1.icensed riersonnel review, inca timely manner,' changes in your license, facility design;and abnormal' (,' .*
. , '
Land emergency procedures. 'The review must also be' documented." The
. letter stated that with the additions, the licensee's' program met- . ' the requirements of Section 50.54(1-1) of 10 CFR Part 50 and-Appendix A of 10 CFR Part~5 " Closed book, proctored, examinations _were' administered to one SRO ' '
and one R0'in 1988 and 1989. Copies of the examinations and gradedt
' -answer sheets were on file. The examination results were as; follows:.
Examine Overall Score Overall Score 1988 Range 1989 Range Score: Scor 'SR0 82% 73-94% 90% 81-100% RO 90% 80-100% 91% 83-100% In 1988, the SRO scored 73% on two parts of the examination.' The Reactor Supervisor stated that the two sections-of the' examination were discussed with the SRO as compensatory training. 'There were no-
*
records _of this compensatory training. This appears to be contrary to'the requirements of Section II. Records, of the February.20,. 1974c Requalification program which states, . in part,-!' Documentation;
"of' additional training and testing required for individuals ' exhibiting deficiencies,will be included". The. Reactor Operator , '
Requalification program specifie's, in part, in Section II Course Work, " Lectures.and tutorial sessions will'he scheduled in appropriate areasifor those individuals scoring.less than 80% in any
. category in the written examination. A minimum of 80% is expected
in all categories".
' After reviewing the_ licensee's records relating to requalificatio of_ operators,_the program was discussed with the Reactor Superviso "
"
The licensee's representative stated that'there was no program of
'
a 1ectures on a preplanned'and centinuing basis. In'additiod there was'no documentation of seminars and discussions or training > session The Reactor Supervisor stated that there was no' formal'or systematic evaluation of operator performance. - This appears to be contrary to
.the requirements;of the February 20, 1974, Requalification program which states, in part, in III. Course Work, "Each licensed operator
- and senior operator will be evaluated based on an operating test by ( '
'
the Reactor Supervisor. Knowledge of normal and emergency procedures, design changes and job performance will be evaluated".
., , In addition the program states in part in Section II. Records, "The
~
> records will contain...results of evaluations". . E
^y
# '
.
,
"
'
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
. - - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - . - '. . '
* . , . .
It appears that the licensee is failure to perform evaluations of R0-and SRO pei Q rmance as required by the' Reactor Operator Requalification program of February 20, 1974, is contrary to the ; requirements of 10 CFR 50.54 Conditions of licenses,(i-1), which n ' provides, in part, "...Notwithstanding.the provisions of (paragraph) 50.59, the licensee may not, except as specifically authorized by . the Commission decrease the scope of an approved operator requalification program." (50-326/89-01-03)
, Surveillance-From a review of the licensee records identified in Report Section 3.h., it was verified that the licensee had satisfied the requirements of TS Section 4.0 Surveillance Requirement ,
The licensee's surveillance program appeared adequate to meet their
,
safety requirements. No violations or deviations were identifie . Health Physics (40750)
.,
' Posting 1 During the tour and radiation survey of the facility it was noted !
that postings met the requirements of 10 CFR 20.203. It was noted ' that the Notice tc 2mployees, Form NRC-3, was not the current issu l-The inspector provided the licensee with a current copy of- the. form which was promptly posted by the license .
'
!
i . e ' Personnel Mo'nitoring , Pocket ionization chambers (PIC) are used by the operations staff l and issued to visitors to the facility by the operating staf An examination of the records of PIC measured exposures showed no H unusual exposures. 'The EH&S staff provides.TLD body badges and finger rings to the operations staff and experimenter The TLD' H are supplied by a commercial,:NVLAP certified, vendor on a monthly ! basis. Exposure records'for 1988 and the-first and second quarters 1 of 1989 were examined. Quarterly, annual and lifetime exposures were not significan l Surveys Prior.to the date of the inspection, in ' addition to the surveys ! performed by the facility staff in support of reactor operations, an EH&S staff member was assigned to the reactor for health physics support. As of the first of September 1989, the responsibilities for those functions were assumed by the R0. EH&S maintained an i
, overview responsibility for facility radiation protectio Facility I surveys performed by the EH&S staff member, assigned previously, i L were well documented and carefully maintained. Survey instruments f were calibrated and supplied to the facility by EH&S. Calibrations
!i were +20% at 1/3 and 2/3 of full scale on all range Several GM I survey and one ion chamber survey instruments were in use at the " I facilit EH&S maintains a supply of portable survey instruments, l
. _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _
_ _ . __- _- _ . _ _ _ _ - - _ _ . -___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - _ _ _ _ ,
. . & ? ? " + ,
9, W - h[ ~ ' , . A ,
-
]
[ ~~available in the. event of failure of the any of the instruments assigned to'the facility, p . Radioactive Waste and Effluents Gaseous Effluents- The facility does not' include a gaseous effluent or stack. monitor. .A TLD is hung in the center of the discharge vent. Gaseous effluent releases were calculated based on the operating time of the pneumatic transfer system. These calculations T were performed to coincide with the annual report period. A continuous air monitor (CAM) operates full time, taking a sample from immediately above the water over the core. There were no 1 indications of releases from that potential source of gaseous i activit ' Liquid Effluents- No liquid radioactive material releases from the facility or the University are authorized. The University L participates in a local-jurisdiction water reclamation project which prohibits any radioactive discharges. EH&S monitors water discharged to that system by the University. Any liquid radioactive'
. wastes generated at the reactor facility are transferred to EH&S for disposal'under the California State licens !
*
'
"
Solid Waste- Solid radioactive wastes generated at the facility are transferred to EH&S for disposal under the State of California license. Records of waste disposed include, volume, isotope, quantity and the date of the transfe The licensee's health physics and radioactive waste programs appear to meet their safety requirements. No violations or deviations were-Lidentified.
' Emergency Planning and Preparedness (40750) The Nuclear Reactor Facility Emergency Plan dated October 1984, is implemented by 50P Section 6 Emergency Procedures, revised August-22 1987. The Plan requires, in Section 10 an annual, on site, emergency exercise. A drill was held on May 24, 1988, which simulated a contaminated, injured person whose rescue was require The drill disclosed a significant concern which the licensee.was evaluating. The Plan specifies that, for drills, when possible the Orange County Fire and Rescue organization shall be involved. The licensee found that rescue personnel had received hazardous materials training and as a result had
. modified their mode of operation. Instead of entering the facility to effect a rescue, the response personnel declined to enter the facility until all hazardous materials aspects of the entry had been resolve The response personnel listened to the members of the facility staff concern _ing the' low levels of radioactive materials possibly involved but ,
declined to deviate from their procedure. The licensee's procedures specifically require that such entries be made only by qualified emergency rescue personnel. Because of the delay resulting from the hazardous materials evaluation the licensee is considering a revision to '
'the procedures to permit rescue by persons other than qualified emergency rescue personne +
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ -
- ____-- _
w *:
, ,,
10 :i o \
-
An emergency exercise was being planned at the March 14 and May 11, 1989, ROC meetin It was verified that the Emergency Procedures were consistent with the requirements for written procedures contained in the Emergency Pla The Emergency Plan requires' that an Emergency Call list be. maintairm An~ Emergency call list dated May 1, 1989, was posted in-the facilit Inspection Report No.. 50-326/88-01 identified a number of deficien'cies with. respect to the Emsrgency Plan implementation. During the inspection the licensee's correct.3ve actions were examined. It was found that the licensee had tcken the corrective actions described in their response to the Notice of Violation resulting from that inspectio E
, 'It appears that the licensee's Emergency Plan and implementing procedures are adequate to meet their safety requirements. No violations or deviations were identifie p +
6 .' Transportation Activities (86740)
-Adexaminationofthelicensee'sshippingandreceiptrecordsestablished that-these activities are conducted under the Universities State of California materials license. Transportation activities appeared to be consistent'with the procedurcl (SOP Section 5.10) requirements and 49 CFR ~ Parts 172-178.' , -
The licensee's program in this area appeared to be adequate to meet their safety requirements. No violations or deviations were identifie . Information Notice $ (92717) It was determined that the licensee has'a method in place to assure th review of such documents by m3mbers of the staff. It was determined that the licensee had not received NRC Information Notice No. 89-09 CREDIT FOR CONTROL RODS WITHOUT SCRAM CAPABILITY IN THE CALCULATION OF THE SHUTDOWN MARGIN The licensee was provided with.-a copy of the document by the l -- inspector. The licensee believed that the missing docen nt must have been misplaced in the Universities internal meil distribution system.
, The licensee planned to follow-up on this possibility. The licensee had l not used such rods in shutdown margin calculations.
L The licensee's program in this area appeared adequate to meet their safety requireinents. Na violations or deviations were identifie . Exit Interview (30703) The scope and findings of the inspection were discussed with the individuals denoted in Report Section 1. The licensee was' informed that apparent violations had been identified in the following areas: Failure of the Reactor Supervisor to-review the Monthly Maintenance Checklists
~for the period August through December 1988 (Report Section 3.h.).
l
.
l _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -
_ _
. - _- . -
, _ - __
- . - _. --- - . . _ - - - . _ . ,
L: , -r .
* *
p 11-
- '
.- . ; .
: t '
L>3- .
-
The licensee was informed that' failure to conduct ROC meetings _at'
- quarterlyLintervals appeared to be contrary to the: requirements of.TS Sectiori 6.2.f. (Report Section 3.c.).
,
- The licensee was informed that the Reactor Operstor Requalification program wa's apparently not: consistent with the requirements 'of 10 CFR 50.54(1-1). (Report Section 3.j.).
.
-1
-
#- '
I
. #
4 i
~ '
F 7:
, ,
J
;l 6 , ,
,
.
d
. < ,
ej
' ' , . l
.- 5 4
!
-<
. l j. ' l
! '
i
:
!
r
'
l l
-
l
,
.i
}}