IR 05000134/1988001
| ML20151W978 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000134 |
| Issue date: | 04/22/1988 |
| From: | Haverkamp D NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20151W972 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-134-88-01, 50-134-88-1, NUDOCS 8805040022 | |
| Download: ML20151W978 (8) | |
Text
_ .__
.
.. .
. . ..
.e
,
..
-
. .
.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION-Region I Report No.: 50-134/88-01 Docket No.: 50-134 License No.: R-61 Licensee: Worcester Polytechnic Institute Worcester, Massachusetts 01609
'acility Name: Worcester Polytechnic' Institute Nuclear Facility Inspection At: Worcester, Massachusetts Inspection Conducted: March 23 and 24, 1988 +
Inspectors: Geoffrey E. Grant, Senior Resident Inspector . Vermont Yankee James E. Kaucher, Project Engineer,-Division of Reactor Projects Approved By: MM / w /h 4/4/F Donald R. Haverkamp, Chief (/ 'Date Reactor Projects Section No. 3C Division of Reactor Projects Inspection Summary: Routine, Unannounced Inspection on March 23 and 24, 1988 (Report No. 50-134/88-01)
Areas Inspected: Routine, unannounced facility tour and inspec' tion (33 hours3.819444e-4 days <br />0.00917 hours <br />5.456349e-5 weeks <br />1.25565e-5 months <br />)
of facility organization, action on previous NRC findings, logs and records, reviews and audits, procedures, surveillances and- experiment ,
Results: No violations were identifie PDR ADOCK 05000134
>
Q -DCD , ,
- .a--____-____-__ __
.
.
.
. .
.
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1. Persons Contacted.......................... ... ........... 1 2. Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings............. 1 3. Organization.............. ................. ............... 1 4. Facility Tour.................................... .......... 2 5. Maintenance and Surveillance...... ......................... 2 Maintenance.......... ... ........................... 2 Surveillanc . ........ ......... .................... 3 6. Radiation Health and Safety Committee....................... 3 k
7. Procedures........... ...... . ....... ................ .. 3 8. Logs, Records and Report . . .......................... . 4 9. Facility Operations..... ... .......... ............ ..... . 5 10. Exit Intervie ...... ... ... ............................ 6 l
1
!
l
.
i
. - . . - . ._ _
.
..
.
. .
f
.
'
DETAILS
, Persons Contacted
,
- T. H. Newton, Jr. , Director, Nuclear Facility
-* J.- A. Mayer, Director, Nuclear Engir.eering Program K. Mathews, Reactor Operator
- Denotes those present at exit intervie , Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Items (Closed) Unresolved Item 134/83-02-01: Technical specifications lists incorrect ranges for beta gamma instrument In July 1984, a technical specification amendment _ kas submitted _to th.e NRC wLich -
corrected the erroneous instrument ranges for beta gamma ' survey instruments. This item is closed.
2 (Closed) Inspector Follow ' Item -134/83-02-02: Posting of- emergen~cy evacuation procedures is to be maintained during building renovatio The renovations to the Washburn Building, which houses the ' reactor facility, were completed in 1983. The emergency evacuation proced-ures are currently posted. This item is closed, (Closed) Inspector Follow Item 134/83-02-04: Licensiee is to assure that evacuation alarms are audible after the renovation of Washburn *
Laboratory is completed. The renovations to the Washburn Laboratory were completed in 1983. The evacuation alarms are tested every six months. This item is close (Closed) Unresolved Item 134/83-01-02: Documentation of Radiatf or: <
Health and Safety Committee (RHSC) approval of non-routine experi- l ments. Only one non-routine experiment has been conducted since '
1983; this was a core reconfiguration to create a simulated ~ flux tra This experiment was reviewed and approved by the RHSC and
>
documented in a special report, reviewed by the inspector. This item is close . Organization The incumbent: of the organization responsible for the safe operation of the Worcester Polytechnic Institute are as follows:
Dr. R. Gallager, Provost T. Newton, Reactor Facility Director *
T. Newton, Radiation Safety Officer * ;
- Technical Specification required staf f positio '
,
i___.______.___________ . . . _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ . . _ . . _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
-.- ..
..(
.. .. -- --
.
.
.
. .
-
2 l l
.
The Nuclear Reactor Facility Director has ' full responsibility for the operation of the facilit The Director ' reports to the Provost and,is responsible to the Radiation Health and Safety Committe9 (RHSC) for conformance to the facility license requirements and NRC' regulation The RHSC is a Technical Specification requirement whose membership is as follows:
R. Goloskie, Chairman J. Mayer,. Secretary V. Bluemel T. Crusberg R. Gallager J. Miller T. Newton R. Sisson L. Wilbur The inspectors noted =that although past RHSC membership has been by Vice President and Dean of Facility appointment, a record of formal designation
.
of the current RHSC membership was not evident. The Director indicated this oversight would be correcte The technical specification (TS) required positions of Nuclear Reactor Facility Director (NRFD) and Radiation Safety Officer (RS0) are currently-filled by the same individual. Although the TS does not state that two separate individuals must fill these positions, it indicates' that the RSO <
serves in an advisory capacity to the NRFD. The licensee indicated that 1 a recommendation would be made to the RHSC to have a separate individual assigned as RS . Facility Tour The inspectors toured the facility on March 23. The general condition of .
the bridge area, rod drive mechanisms, pool level- detector, pool water !
I filter and demineralizer, radiation and air monitoring systems, the con- l trol center and housekeeping were observed. The reactor facility appears to be generally well kept, and is clean and free of clutter. No unsatis-factory conditions were identifie . Maintenance and Surveillance Maintenance The licensee has a program in place which provides a minimum level of preventive maintenance at the facility. This is a formal program
"
consisting of maintenance check lists for each month of the yea i The check lists serve both as a tickler and record subsequent to performance. The inspector reviewed the last three years of com-pleted check lists and found.no items of concer l
.!
.- -- - . _ . - - - - . -_ - _ . _
.
'
.
. . .
e 3
-
Corrective maintenance . records for work performed on safety-related systems are kept in files together with calibration data / records for component These records appear to be adequately detailed and form
.
'an equipment maintenar.ce history record. Although no formal trending -
program is in place, the information is all readily availabh in' the current record No unsatisfactory conditions were identifie , Surveillance ,
The inspectors reviewed the procedures used to perform technical specification required calibrations of power level instruments. The l procedure is traceable to the National Bureau of Standard The calibrations'are performed semi-annually as required by technical specifications and the instruments are set conservatively, 'i.e.,
indicated power greater than actual powe The inspectors also reviewed the calculations for excess reactivity and the annual inspection reports for the safety blades. No items of concern were identifie * Radiation Health and Safety Committee (RHSC) i The inspectors reviewed the minutes from the quarterly RHSC meetings for the past three years. The content of the minutes were found to be sub- 4
'
stantive and to indicate that tnis regulating body takes an' active
, interest in the reactor facilit Particularly of note, is the fact that the RHSC has established a detailed set of regulations which govern it )
activities and establish its responsibilitie Part of the regulations .'
are a set of standard report forms, covering various reactor facility )
functional areas, which are filled out by the director of the reactor j facility and submitted to the RHSC prior to each meeting. The data in these reports are reviewed by the members of the RHSC, discussed and accepted / rejected at the meetin j Although inspections of the facility are performed weekly by the Radiation I Safety Officer and quarterly audit reports are provided to the RHSC, no independent audits of the operation of the reactor facility are performe Consideration should be given by the RHSC to having periodic independent audits conducted at the reactor facilit . procedures
"
The inspector reviewed the facility operating procedures. Procedures and l current revision dates are listed belo '
Procedure Title Date
Check Out and Operating Procedure 11/83 l Evacuation Procedure 11/83
'
Evacuation Regulation 11/83
- Fuel Unloading Procedures 11/83
,
s !
-l
.__ - _ . _ . .- _ _ _ ._ ,., _ -._-_ _ . ~ ; '!
. _ . .. .. .. . -. - -- _
,()
Procedure Title Date Fuel Reloading to Standard Configuration 11/83
. Excess Reactivity. Measurement Procedure 10/85 Power Level Calibration Precedure 11/83 Rod Drop Measurement Procedure 11/83'
Laboratory Safety Rules 11/83 Fuel Inventory Procedure 11/83 Wipe Test Procedure . 11/83 Portable Monitoring Instrument Calibration Procedure 11/83-pH Meter Calibration Procedur . 11/83-Pool Water Conductivity Cell Calibration Procedure 11/83 Requalification Program 11/83 Air Sampling Procedure .
11/83 Procedure for Accepting Delivery of Commercially Prepared Isotopes 11/83 RSO Weekly Reactor Facility Inspection 7/85 Demineralizer-Regeneration .1/84 Procedure for Replacing Resin in Ion Exchange Column 11/83 *
Area Monitor Calibration Procedure 7/85 Rod Withdrawal Time Measurement Procedure 7/85 The inspectors noted that a recommendation from inspection report 50-134/-
83-01 to review / update procedures had been accomplished. Additionally, several new procedures had been implemented to support various require-ments and routine facility operation The inspectors noted two 1, s+ances of outdated information contained in procedures. The first was related to "Fuel Loading to Standard Configura-tion." This . procedure describes the prerequisites, precautions, require-ments and method of refueling the core. The load sequence and core con-figuration contained in this procedure is out-of-date. The current core configuration is an alteration approved and ' implemented in February 198 This new configuration (and associated . load sequence) should be incor-porated into the procedure either as a replacement of 'the old standard '-
configuration or as an authorized alternative to it.-
The second proceduial deficiency was in "Evacuation Regulation". The per-
-
sonnel and phone numbers contained in the "Authorized Radiation Personnel" list are outdate The Director indicated that both of these procedures would. be correcte The inspectors had no further questions in this are . Logs, Records and Reports The inspectors reviewed the following logs, records and reports:
--
WPI Open Pool Training Reactor Logbook, Volume VI for the period
' February 13, 1986 to February 25, 198 ..
.
- \
. .
. 5
--
Reactor Startup Checkoff Lists for the period April 12, 1984 to February 25, 198 Experiment Activation Log _ for the period December 10,'1987 ? through February 24, 198 Annual Operating Report for 198 'The reactor logbook contained information such as: o.nerators and key personnel present at startup, designation ;of console operator, times asso-clated with reactor operations, power levels, experiments, access restric-tions, calibration and testing, _ core loading _ and unloading ~, scrams, _ and excess reactivity determinations. The logbook contained sufficient detail to adequately describe overall operation The reactor startup checkoff cont'ains a preformatted . action - li st that mirrors the_ reactor startup and operating procedures. The list is
, detailed and provides a good basis for tracking startup preparations 'and prerequisite !
The activation log details the date, power level . : time at . power level, saniple type and post-exposure activity of the materials used in various experiment All legs, records and reports reviewed contained required information signoffs and review The inspectors noted no deficiencie . Facility Operations Facility Tour .-
The inspectors toured the Worcester Polytechnic Institute (WPI) Nuclear Reactor Facility with the facility Director immediately after the entrance interview. The reactor was shutdown at the time and remained so for the i duration of the inspection. Housekeeping at the facility . was generally very good. The pool area was kept clean of debris and the ' pool itself was
-
clean. Radiation warning signs were prominently posted in appropriate locations. Evacuation procedures were conspicuously posted at appropriate locations throughout the facility. Facility procedures, logs and records were located at appropriate stations and were readily availabl No inadequacies were noted during the facility tou Reactor Operations The WPI Nuclear Reactor facility is used entirely for teaching . purposes with the same experiments repeatedly used in teaching diffurent groups of .
.
students. Review of logs and re:ords showed that the last date of opera-tion was February 25, 1988. No operations occurred during the inspection perio i
.
____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _
.. . .- .. . -_ . - - . - . -. - _ _ - .
.-
.-
., . .
.
.
6~
Review of the operations log showed that there had been twenty-two unplanned scrams in the period of February 13, 1986 to February 25, 1988.
,
The log contained sufficient information to determine the cause of each sc ram. The predominant initiator of scrams has been instrument noise in various forms (bumped cables and spurious spikes). Several scrams w'ere attributed to operator / error when changing compensated ion chamber (CIC)
(a nuclear instrument) scales during power changes. The. inspectors dis-cussed the scram history with the Director and determined that appropriate post-scram actions had been take During the review, the inspectors noted that an excess reactivity measure-ment was not performed after the June 1987 post-maintenance core reloa The measurement is required by facility. procedure, "Fuel Reloading to Standard Configuration." Semi-annual excess reactivity measurements required by technical specification (TS) 3.1 had been performed and appro-priately logged. The Director noted that the June 1987 post-reload core ,
testing was interrupted by a failure of the startup channel instrumenta- '
tion. The reactor was shutdown for three months - pending repairs. Upo restart, the measurement requirement was missedc This appears to be an ,
anomalous occurrenc The inspectors noted that pool water temperature was not logged routinely or as part of the startup checkoff procedure. Water temperature is a TS'
safety limit with a range of 110 F to 40 F for non-critical operation and 100 F to 60 F for critical operation. The water temperature was' indicated on the reactor control panel and is currently being converted .to a computer display. The inspectors recommended that this important variable be logged as part of the startup checkoff procedure - to ensure operations
>
are consistent with T The inspectors found overall facility operations to be very goo No violations were identifie . Exit Interview The inspectors met with licensee representatives (denoted in paragraph 1)
at the conclusion of the inspection on March 24, 198 The inspectors presented the scope and findings of their inspectio The licensee acknowledged the findings and indicated that corrective actions would be taken where appropriat ,
l l
l
,
l
. ._. __ , , _ , _ - _ . _ - - - _ _ - - _ . - - _ . , . -
-
,...-__.m._._, . - - - - . _ - - , _ ,