IR 05000193/1986002

Insp Rept 50-193/86-02 on 860224-25.No Violation Noted. Major Areas Inspected:Facility Tour,Action Taken on Previous Insp Findings,Requalification Training,Experiments,Health Physics & Emergency Planning

ML20203M920
Person / Time
Site:	Rhode Island Atomic Energy Commission
Issue date:	04/23/1986
From:	Elsasser T NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:
Shared Package
ML20203M918	List: IR 05000193/1986002 ML20203M917
References
50-193-86-02, 50-193-86-2, NUDOCS 8605020150
Download: ML20203M920 (7)

Text

.

.

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

REGION I

Docket / Report: 50-193/86-02 Docket No. 50-193 Licensee: Rhode Island Atomic Energy Commission South Ferry Road Narragansett, Rhode Island 02882 Facility: Rhode Island Atomic Energy Commission Inspection At: Narragansett, Rhode Island Dates: February 24 - 25, 1986 Inspector: T. Foley, 5 for R dent Inspector, Calvert Cliffs Approved By: /< /[Jd/fl

'T. C. Elsasse, ef, Reactor Projects Section 3C Date Summary: Inspection on February 24-25, 1986 (Inspection Report No. 50-193/86-02)

Areas Inspected: A routine unannounced on-site inspection of licensee activities including: Facility tour, action taken cn Previous Inspection Findings, Facility operation review, Technical Specifications and Surveillance, Requalification Training, Experiments, Health Physics, Audits and Committees, Emergency Planning, Health Physics and verification of reduced on site storage of High Enriched Uranium (HEU).

Results: Although no violations were identified, four concerns regarding posting of the restricted area (Paragraph 5.a), test acceptance criteria (Paragraph 5.b),

calibrations of instruments (Paragraph 5.c), and posting of the most recent NRC Form-3 (Paragraph 10) were identified. One inspector follow item, concerning spent fuel is discussed in Paragraph 11. Stored quantities of HEU on site is minimal, and operation of the facility appears to be in conforuance with aonlicable re-quirement e605020150 860423 PDR ADOCK 05000193 G PDR

.

DETAILS Persons Contacted R. Coons, Reactor Operator F. DiMeglio, Director Rhode Island AEC Nuclear Science Center *

M. Doyle, Assistant Director N. Jacob, Radiation Safety Officer E. Spring, Senior Facility Engineer W. Simoneau, Reactor Supervisor B. Smith, Reactor Operator

• Present at Exit Intervie . Facility Tour Upon arrival, the inspector met with the Director of the facility, then wit-nessed operators perform a routine Reactor start-up to 100% powe During this time discussions were held with plant operators regarding plant para-meters, Technical Specification requirements (TS), Emergency Procedures and Plans, training, surveillances and operator concerns. The inspector deter-mined that operators were knowledgeable of applicable procedures, plans, Technical Specifications and plant parameters. A comparison between Technical Specification requirements to current plant parameters and surveillance re-quirements was performed; no inadequacies were note . Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings (Closed) Violation (83-01-01) One individual fulfilling the TS-required posi-tions of Director of Operations, Health Physicist, and Senior Reactor Operato On May 2, 1983 RIAEC appointed Mr. A. F. DiMeglio as Director of Operations and subsequently Mr. M. Doyle as Assistant Director and Mr. D. Johnson as Health Physicist. These positions were formally in place during the inspec-tio This matter is close (Closed) Inspector Follow Item (83-01-02) Insufficient Records of Reactivity Maripulations for Licensed Personnel Exempt from Written Examination The inspector viewed summary sheets of reactivity manipulations for all licensed operators including those exempt from written examinations. Reactivity mani-pulations were clearly documented for all licensed personnel. This item is close (Closed) Inspector Follow Item (83-01-04) Selected " Neutron' Irradiation Re-quest" Forms NSC-7 were not properly approved for Experiment No.105. The inspector reviewed numerous NSC-7 forms and found no additional oversight !

, All experiments examined during the inspection were properlysapproved by the

'

Director of Operations on the NSC-7 from. This item is closed.

l l

I L

.

4. Facility Operation Review The facility is primarily used by University of Rhode Island graduate students for neutron activation analysis experiments. The reactor is brought to 100%

power daily and shutdown in the afternoon. Complete start up and shut down check lists are performed daily. Nuclear Instrumentation (NI) calibrations are performed by physically moving a calibrated source adjacent to the detec-tors. Reactor protection system (RPS) operability checks are also physically performed by latching the control rods, " Shim and Regulating Rods," and per-forming a functional " scram" of the system by placing a mobile neutron source near the Log N detector of the Nuclear Instrumentation system, which in turn causes an increasing meter indication. Other RPS system functional checks are similarily performe The inspector reviewed the shift schedule to verify staffing. Operators are on a two hour watch rotation and normally on watch four hours a day five days a week. Staffing of the facility is in accordance with Technical Specifica-tion requirement . Technical Specification and Surveillance The inspector verified by review of plant parameters, logs, strip chart re-corders, and surveillances on other records that the following TS requirements were met:

TS N Requirement Site Restricted Area boundary shall be posted to prevent unauthor-ized entr Functional checks of the Evacuation butto Primary Coolant design specification Reactor safety system setting Design features of area and exhaust gas monitor Control Room manning and communication Review and approval of experiment Operations K. Containment integrity K.3.b.2 Clean up system operability K.3.b.2.b Test frequency (1) RCS gross activity, PH, conductivity (2) Scram time test (3) Control Red speed (4) Nuclear Instrumentation calibratio _ _ . _ _

.

o .

o

.

Technical Specification.requireme9ts were met in all cases with the exception of,the following possible deviation TS Section A. requ res that the site restricted area boundary be con-spicuously posted with signs to prevent unauthorized entry. The licensee maintains two signs on a picket fence in front af the Reactor building reading " Keep Out" and three additional stating RIAE No other signs on other sides of the building or fences were identified. The inspector indicated that these signs did not fully meet the intent of the require-ment and that additional signs should be posted more conspicuously on each boundary around the Reactor building to more emphatically emphasize the intent of keeping unauthorized personnel ou The licensee agreed to place additional signs emphasizing the restricted area requirem'ent. This is unresolved pending proper posting of the re-stricted area (86-02-01). TS Section F.1: During the review of Reactor Safety System settings the inspector noted that surveillance data sheets, operator start-up check sheets, and monthly addendums to the start-up check sheets are used to record surveillance data in order to verify compliance with requirement Many parameters had acceptance criteria, but no tolerance margins speci-fied. The recorded data often varied substantially from the acceptance criteria. The licensee stated that although the data was not in exact agreement with the acceptance criteria, there was considerable margin before a TS required limit was reached. The inspector agreed, but noted that acceptance limits should be placed on the parameters such that operators can determine exactly where the operability limits are and when further review / evaluation is require Additionally, several surveillance sheets did not have any acceptance criteria with or without a tolerance. This was an oversight according to the licensee. The licensee agreed to:

(1) Make the documents, logs, addendums, and surveillance consistent in requiring acceptance criteria; (2) Identify a tolerance on all acceptance criteria to determine when further evaluation is required; and (3) Incorporate limits on acceptability for determining when equipment or systems are inoperabl Pending review of the above types of documents for more extensive ac-ceptance criteria, this matter is unresolved (86-02-02). TS Section G.2: During the review of design features of area and exhaust gas monitors, the inspector questioned how each installed instrument was calibrated and how the equipment used for calibration was calibrated and traceable to. National Standards. All instruments inspected, except for

_

_ - _ - _ _ . _ -- . - - - - - - -- _-___ ._- __ _

.

one, were found to be calibrate The exception, an Oscilloscope used for calibrations of other installed instruments, had not been calibrated since being received from the vendor two years prior. 10 CFR 50, Appen-dix B, Criterion XII requires that all measuring and testing devices used in activities affecting quality be calibrated at specified periods to maintain accuracy within the necessary limits. The failure to include

} the Oscilloscope within the calibration program is considered an isolated case. Pending further review of the licensee's calibration of the Os-cilloscope and the licensee's actions on those instruments dependent on the Oscilloscope for calibration, this item is considered unresolved

'

(86-02-03).

. Requalification Training A review was conducted of Licensed Operator training, examinations and reac-tivity manipulations records. Schedules of lectures and a sampling of lesson plans were also reviewed. The inspector ascertained that required records were maintained and that the licensing requalification training program was current and fully implemented. The licensee is currently on a two year re-qualification cycle (letter from P. Collins, NRC Operator Licensing Branch, May 1978). During the 1985 examination, one individual received less than 70% in one are Documentation was provided demonstrating retraining and re-examination in this are Documented lectures, " Table Top sessions" regarding procedure changes, facil-ity changes, experiments, and emergency plan procedures were provide No inadequacies were identifie . Experiments Experiments performed at Rhode Island Atomic Energy Commission are primarily Neutron Activation Analysis. Reviews were conducted to verify that all types of experiments were reviewed and approved, that a safety evaluation was per-

, formed for each, that predicted parameters were determined and. ascertained

'

within tolerance by the licensee, and that irradiated items were properly accounted fo No inadequacies were identifie . Audits and Committees A general review of audit reports and committee activities was conducte Audits are periodically conducted by the Reactor Utilization Committee and the Radiation Safety Committee. These committees are actively involved in site activities; specifically, the review of experiments, security plans, emergency plans and medical emergency plan Audit reports which are not resolved on site are forwarded to the Rhode Island Atomic Energy Commission.

i No inadequacies were identified.

i

,

,- , ,

. . . _ . . . . -

.

-

Emergency Planning

, The Nuclear Science Center Emergency Plan was reviewed. Drills and " Table

'

Top lectures" are periodically (at least annually) performed. Training

'

records of changes in the plan and audits of emergency planning activities were reviewed. The emergency plan is up to date, and being effectively im-plemented.

No inadequacies were identifie . Health Physics

, The inspector noted during tours of the facility that copies of the " Notice to Worker NRC Form-3" were posted, but out of date. The licensee was re-quested to obtain a more recent revision (i.e., 6-82) as required by 10 CFR 19.11. This is unresolved pending the updating of the NRC Form-3 (86-02-04).

Exposure records, radiation surveys, transportation shipments and notifica-

'

tions, and effluent discharge permit and records were reviewed. Instrument calibrations and source checks were noted on portable survey meters. Person-nel dosimetry, protective clothing and protection from potential airborne activity were all appropriate.

i No inadequacies were identifie . Stored Quantities of High Enriched Uranium (HEU) On Site In accordance with NRC Inspection and Enforcement Temporary Instruction 2545/1, the inspector examined the quantity, storage and controls associated with HEU on sit The inspector observed the new fuel vault contents to physically ascertain what new fuel was accessibl Only one fuel element and a few miscellaneous components totalling less the 1kg of HEU were in the new fuel vault. Safe-

, guard controls associated with the vault are described in safeguards Inspec-

tion Report (50-193/85-03).

Through discussions, reviews of operating history, and observation of the Spent Fuel Pool, the inspector determinea that the quantity of material exempt from the licensee's inventory of accessible HEU was greater than 100 Rem /hr at three feet. The current inventory of accessible fuel is of Low Strategic Significance. The licensee has made arrangements to ship several casks of ,

spent fuel to disposal sites; however, is waiting for the Department of Energy to supply an approved cask. Should a cask not be made available for a sub-stantial length of time, the spent fuel may need to be re-irradiated in order to maintain its exemption from being not readily separable from other radio-active material. For this reason this area should be re-inspected during a subsequent inspection. This is an inspector follow item (86-02-05).

,

emr-.,---w- w w. -., . , _--..,,--...---_nc.mmr,,-.+--.e,

--

-,-m,-,y, ,m . -......1-.,--. *,--. .w , y.,e--.r--,

-

-.--,.--.y=.- - - - - - , - - - - + - , . , . ,

.

.

12. Exit Interview At the conclusion of the inspection on February 25, 1986 the inspector met with the Director of the facility and reviewed the scope and findings ( unresolved items in Paragraphs 5 and 10). The inspector noted the licensee's candor and good cooperation. At no time during this inspection was written material provided to the licensee by the inspecto _ _