IR 05000243/1998202
| ML20198Q823 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oregon State University |
| Issue date: | 01/04/1999 |
| From: | NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20198Q817 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-243-98-202, NUDOCS 9901070417 | |
| Download: ML20198Q823 (17) | |
Text
. . . - . ~ . . - - - - . . -.
'
- '
. ,'
,
. .
L U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Docket No: 50-243 l
l l License No; R-106 )
i Report No:. ~ 50-243/98-202 Licensee: Oregon State. University
)
Facility: TRIGA Mark-Il Reactor Facility
' Location: Radiation Center, Oregon State University Corvallis, Oregon Dates: November 30 - December 3,1998 Inspector: Craig Bassett, Senior Non-Power Reactor inspector Approved by: Seymour H. '.Veiss,' Director Non-Power Reauors and Decommissioning Project Directorate Division of Reactor Program Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation f
i l
l
,
"
.
9901070417 990104 l
'
. .
.
.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This routine, announced inspection included onsite review of various aspects of the licensee's programs concerning the conduct of operations and emergency preparedness as they relate to the licensee's Class 2 one and one-tenth megawatt (1.1Mw) research reactor. The licensee's programs were directed toward the protection of public health and safety and were in compliance with NRC requirements. No safety concerns or violations of regulatory requirements were identifie Conduct of Operations e Staffing, reporting, and record keeping met requirements specified in Technical Specifications (TS) Section * Review and oversight functions required by TS Section 6.2 were acceptably completed by the Reactor Operations Committee.10 CFR 50.59 changes had been reviewed and approved by the ROC as required and none were determined to constitute an unreviewed safety questio e The requalification/ training program was up-to-date and acceptably maintained. Medical examinations were being completed as require * Facility procedures and document reviews satisfied TS Section 6 requirement Procedural compliance was acceptabl * Reactor fuel movements were made and documented in accordance with procedure and the fuel was being inspected on an as-needed basis as allowed by TS Section * The program for surveillance and Limiting Conditions for Operation confirmations was being implemented in accordance with TS requirement * The program for the control of experiments satisfied regulatory requirements and licensee commitment Emeraency Preparedness
- The licensee's Emergency Response Plan was found to be acceptable by the NRC after the last major revision in 1996. Another revision is being prepared for submittal to the NRC in the near futur * The implementing Procedures were being updated as required and were adequate to~
carry out the provisions of the Emergency Response Pla o Emergency response facilities and equipment were being maintained as required and responders were knowledgeable of proper actions to take in case of an emergenc * The licensee maintained current Letters of Agreement with offsite agencies that showed that support would be available in case of an emergenc . .. ., . _ . . . - - . . ~ . . . _ . . _ - . . _ . - - . . . . . . - . . . . . _ .
...
,
'
,.. .,
"
l
l l e- Annual drills were held but the documentation for the 1997 drill was not available and the 1998 drill had not been held to date. An inspector Follow-up item was established to i l review the results of the 1997 drill and verify that the appropriate degree of difficulty was included in the dril ;
l e Documentation of emergency preparedness training for off-site personnel was identified as an inspector Follow-up ite i
f
!
,
-
,
"
!
,
,,
-
, :
'
,
, j
.
..
.
, !
.
q Recort Details !
l Summary of Plant Status The licensee's 1.1 Mw TRIGA Mark-Il non-power reactor (NPR) continued normal, routine operations. A review of the applicable records indicated that the reactor was typically operated approximately six hours per day, five days per week, in support of laboratory testing, reactor system testing, reactor surveillances, and sample irradiations. During this inspection, the reactor was started up and operated several hours a day at varying power levels for training and sample irradiatio . Conduct of Operations a. Oroanization. Operations. and Maintenance Activities (Inspection Procedure IIP 169001)
1. Insoection Scope To verify staffing, reporting, and record keeping requirements specified in Technical - 4
'
Specifications (TS) Section 6 were being met, the inspector reviewed:
- e organization and staffing for the facility, e qualifications of recently appointed personnel, e administrative controls, e the reactor console logs, and e the annual report . Observations and Findinas The licensee's current operational organization consisted of the Radiation Center Director, a Reactor Administrator, Reactor Supervisor (a qualified Reactor Operator), three Reactor Operators, Scientific instrument Technician (also qualified as a Reactor Operator), Senior Health Physicist, Health Physicist, and a Radiation Protection Technologist. This organization was consistent with that specified in the TS.
- it was noted that the Radiation Center Director position was recently vacated and the former Chairman of the Reactor Operations Committee had been nominated and l approved to fill that position. The position of Reactor Administrator also recently had
'
been vacated and another individual selected to fill that position. A review of the qualifications of these two newly appointed individuals demonstrated that they were qualified in accordance with the American National Standard ANSl/ANS-15.4-1988 as required by the TS.
! The Reactor Supervisor maintained a schedule for reactor operations and tracked I
the completion of maintenance and surveillance activities. This practice kept the
'
staff aware of upcoming activities and helped ensure good administrative control over operational aspects of the facility, i
J
-
.
'
.
, ,
.
A review of the reactor console logs showed that they were being maintained as required and problems, if any, were being documented. The annual reports summarized the required information and were issued at the frequency specified in the T . Conclusions Staffing, reporting, and record keeping met the requirements specified in TS Section b. Review. Audit. and Desico Chanae Functions (IP 69001)
1. Inspection Scoce in order to verify that the licensee had established and conducted reviews and audits as required and to determine whether modifications to the facility were consistent with 10 CFR 50.59 and the TS, the inspector reviewed:
- Reactor Operations Committee meeting minutes, e audits and reviews, and
- engineering changes under 10 CFR 50.5 . Observations and Findinas Minutes of the Reactor Operations Committee (ROC) showed that the committee met at the required frequency and that a quorum was present. The topics considered during the meetings were appropriate and as stipulated in TS Section 6.2. The ROC conducted audits and reviews as required. Problems noted during audits were discussed with the licensee and recommendations for improvement were made. The licensee imp'emented the improvements as necessar As noted above, the former Chairman of the ROC had recently been selected to become the Director of the Radiation Center. The inspector determined that the person who was chosen to become the new Chairman was well qualified for the position because the new Chairman was the former Reactor Administrato Through review of applicable records and interviews with licensee personnel, the inspector determined that all changes that had been initiated and/or completed at the facility since the last NRC operations inspection had undergone a review by the licensee staff who then wrote proposals outlining the changes. These were presented to the ROC for revicw and approvalin accordance with procedure. It was noted that none of the changes were determined to constitute an unreviewed safety i question.
!
-
.
l l,
3. Conclusions Review and oversight functions required by TS Section 6.2 were acceptably completed by the ROC.10 CFR 50.59 changes had been reviewed and approved by the ROC as required and none were determined to constitute an unreviewed safety questio c. Operator Licenses. Reaualification. and Medical Activities (IP 69001)
1. Inspection Scoce To determine that operator requalification activities and training were conductad as required and that medical requirements were met, the inspector reviewed:
e active license status, e logs and records of reactivity manipulations, a written examinations, e training records, and e medical examination record . Observations and Findinas The licensee currently has four qualified senior reactor operators (SROs) and two reactor operators (ROs). Alllicenses were current and the earliest that any was scheduled to expire is in February of Une year 2000. It was noted that the person who recently assumed the position of Reactor r dministrator is no' s qualified operator but is currently in training to become on A review of the logs and records showed that training had been conducted in the areas outlined in the licensee's requalification and training program. It was noted that lectures had been given as stipulated and that training reviews and examinations had bon documented. Records of quarterly reactor manipulations, other operations activities, and Reactor Supervisor activities were being maintained, as were records of the Annual Operations Test Operators were receiving the required medical examinations at the frequency specifie . Conclusions The requalification/ training program was up-to-date and acceptably maintaine Medict,! examinations were being completed as required.
l
. .
.
.
d. Procedures (IP 69001) Inspection Scope To determine whether facility procedures met the requirements outlined in TS Section 6 5, the inspecter reviewed:
e operating procedures, e administrative procedures, and e procedural reviews and Lpdate . Observations and Findinos Operating procedures were acceptable for the facility and the current staffing level and specified the responsibilities of the various members of the staff. The procedures were being reviewed annually and updated as needed. The operations that were observed during this inspection were completed in accordance with the applicable procedure . Conclusions Facility procedures and document reviews satisfied TS Section 6 requirement Procedural compliance was acceptabl e. Fuel Movement (IP 69001) Inspection Scope in order to verify adherence to fuel handling and inspection requirements, the inspector reviewed:
e fuel handling procedures, e fuel inspection procedures, and e applicable logs and record . Observations and Findinas The inspector determined that the licensee was maintaining the required records of the various fuel movements that were completed and verified that the movements were conducted in compliance with procedure. The reactor fuel was being inspected upon initial receipt and on an as-needed basis as allowed by TS Section 4.4. The procedures used were acceptable and the radiological controls established were adequat ._ _ _ . - _ . . . _ . _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ . _ . _ . _ . _ _ _ _ .. ._ _ . _ . _ _
-
F: .,
I
.. .
.l 5-
' 3. Conclusions l- .
-.
I L Reactor fuel movements were made and documented in accordance with procedure
! - and the fuel was being inspected on an as-needed basis as allowed by TS Section
! 4.4.
! Surveillance (IP 69001)
'
1. Insoection Scope l To determine that surveillances and Limiting Conditions for Operations (LCOs)
verifications were being complet6d as required by TS Section 4.0, the inspector
,
reviewed:
e seledted surveillance procedures, e selected surveillance data and records, and e Limiting Conditions for Operation . Observations and Findsnas- i
!
. -
l 1The inspector noted that selected monthly, quarterly, semiannual, and annual ;
checks, tests, verifications, and/or calibrations for TS-required surveillances and !
LCOs verifications were completed as stipulated. The surveillances and LCOs )
l verifications reviewed were generally completed on schedule and in accordance with j licensee procedures. All the recorded results were within the TS and procedurally i prescribed paramaters. The records and logs reviewed were accurate, complete, i and being maintained as require ;
i 3. Conclusio_ng ,
The program for surveillance and LCOs confirmations was being carried out in I accordance with TS requirement l
. g.' Exoeriments (IP 690011 ' '
1. Inspection Scope r 1 In order to verify that experiments were being conducted within approved guidelines, I the inspector reviewed ,
t 4 * experiment review and approval by the ROC, e potential hazards identification, and o control of irradiated items.
l
- ,
p n
.. .~. .-,. , _ - , _ , , - ,
-
- , - - , .-
- _ - . - . - --... --- - - -.--- . .. _ -- - - - . . ~ . -
,
L .
l*
!
.
,
i 2. Observations and Findinas l 1 The inspector noted that all the experiments conducted were well-established l t procedures that had been in place for mar'y years. No new experiments had been !
l initiated, reviewed, or approved since the last inspection. The experiments that were i l conducted were completed under the cognizance of the Chief Reactor Supervisor as !
l required. The results of the experiments were documented in the reactor operations l log boo . The inspector observed the removal of a set of experiment samples from the
!
reactor. It was noted that licensee personnel followed procedure and established protocol Engineenng controls were used to limit exposure to radiatio Contamination controls were used effectivel )
3. Conclusions The license's program for the control of experiments satisfied regulatory requirements and licensee commitments.
l 2. Emergency Preparedness i
!
l J
,
a. Chanoes to the Emeraency Response Plan (IP 69001)
1. Inspection Scope l
!' To determine compliance with the requirements of 10 CFR 50.54(q) and the l licensee's Emergency Response Plan, the inspector reviewed:
,
i e the Emergency Response Plan and implementing Procedures,
'
- ROC meeting minutes, e recent revisions and updates, and e applicable letters and documents concerning tha Emergency Response Plan.
l 2. Observations and Findinas The licensee submitted a revised Emergency Response Plan to the NRC on January 15,1996. The NRC reviewed the changes and found that they were j~ acceptable to implement the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E. Only i
minor changes had been made to the plan in 1997. The licensee was currently preparing another revision to be submitted to the NRC in the near future. The inspector also noted that the plan was reviewed annually by the ROC as required by the TS, Conclusions
. The licensee's Emergency Response Plan was found to be acceptable by the NRC after the last major revision in 1996. Another revision is being prepared for submittal to the NRC in the near future.
f
..
, .. ..- - ...-. .. ..~.- ,.- - - . - .. .- .-.- -.- - ~.-.-_
p v , ,
\
.. .
,
! . i L 7 !
,
b. Emeroency Response Plan Imolementina Procedures (IP 69001)
1.' Insoection Scooe L (in order to verify the adequacy of the licensee's Emergency Response Plan
,_ , ' Implementing Procedures, the inspector reviewed:
l
'
- - the Emergency Response Plan and implementing Procedures, l-
"
- . ROC meeting minutes, and e recent revisions and updates of the procedures, i
< -2. Observations and Findinas l r
l The licensee had reviewed and revised tM . implementing Procedures as required. ;
' The procedures were last updated in 1996 and were acceptable to implement the
_
!
provisions stipulated in the E-Pla :3.' Conclusions
The implementing Procedures were being updated as required and were adequate
.
to implement the provisions of the Emergency Response Plan. c. Emeroency Preoaredness Proaram implementation (IP 69001) ;
,
,1. -Inspection Scope
,
To determine the adequacy of the licensee's Emergency Preparedness Program,
. the inspector reviewed:
0 = facilities,' .
- . equipment, !
,
e instrumentation,-
'
e' - supplies on hand, and :
.e emergency response personnel training.
h .
. 2. Observations and Findinas i The facilities and _ equipment set asido for emergency response were being ;
'
L maintained as required in the Emergency Response Pla Through records review and interviews with licensee pe sonnel, emergency responders were determined to be knowledgeable of the proper actions to take in
- case of an emergenc . Conclusic"t i
.
l- ' ^
.
,
.
Emergency response facilities and equipment were being maintained as required and responders were knowledgeable of proper actions to take in case of an emergenc d. Offsite Sucoort (IP 69001) Insoection Scopjit To verify the adequacy of the offsite support that would be provided to the licensee in case of an emergency, the inspector reviewed:
e the Emergency Response Plan and implementing Procedures, e Letters of Agreement, and e communications capabilitie . Observations and Findinas Updated Letters of Agreement were on file indicating that various state and local agencies were available to respond in case of an emergency. An agreement also had been established with the Good Samaritan Hospitalin case a contaminated injured person required medical treatment. Communications capabilities with these agencies were acceptable and had been tested on a periodic basi . Conclusions The licensee maintained current Letters of Agreement with offsite agencies that indicated that support would be available in case of an emergenc e. Emeraency Preparedness Exercises and Drills (IP 69001) Inspection Scope To determine that the licensee v'as conducting the exercises and drills as specified in the Emergency Response Plan, the inspector reviewed:
o recent drill scenarios, e the critiques of drill performance by emergency responders, and e other associated documentation of recent drill . Observations and Findings The inspector noted that drills had been conducted annually as required by the Emergency Response Plan. Critiques were generally held following the drills to
'
discuss the pcaitive and negative aspects of the exercise and to develop possible solutions to any problems identified. It was noted that no documentation of the drill held in 1997 was readily available. It had been documented very briefly in the Reactor Console Log but the actual scenario, drill notes, and critique of the drill were not available. The licensee stated that the former Reactor Administrator had stored
, .
^
i l
l the material on the hard drive of his computer but was not able to retrieve it at the ;
l moment. It was also noted that the drill for 1998 had not yet been conducted. The licensee acknowledged the importance of conducting appropriate drills and that drills l l usually highlight areas for improvement. The licensee was informed that the issue 1 l of documenting the 1997 drill would be noted by the NRC as an Inspector Follow-up l ltem (IFI) and would be reviewed during a future inspection (IFl 50-243/98-202-01).
l 3. Conclusions
!
!
!
Annual drills were held but the documentation for the 1997 drill was not available and the 1998 drill had not been hela to date. An Inspector Follow-up item was
'
established to review the results of the 1997 drill and verify that the appropriate degree of difficulty was included in the dril Emeraency Preparedness Trainina (IP 69001) Inspection Scope in order to verify the adequacy of the licensee's emergency training, the inspector reviewed:
- the Emergency Response Plan, and a training record . Observations and Findinas With respect to Emergency Preparedness and Response training, the inspector noted that it was being completed and documented as required for licensee personnel. However, it was noted that specific off-site personnel were to be involved in and receive regular training at fixcd intervals but the specific periodicity was not given. The last records of any training for off-site personnel was that conducted prior to the 1996 annual drill. The licensee intends to conduct this training prior to the i998 drill. The licensee was informed that the issue of documenting training for off-site personnel concerning emergency preparedness would be noted by the NRC as an IFl and would be verified during a future inspection (IFl 50-243/98-202-02).
3. Conclusions Documentation of emergency preparedness training for off-site personnel was identified as an Inspector Follow-up Ite . Exit Interview The inspection scope and results were surnmarized on December 3,1998, with licensee
- representatives. The inspector discussed the findings for each area reviewed. The
'
licensee acknowledged the findings and did not identify as proprietary any of the msterial
! provided to or reviewed by the inspector during the inspection.
_ .. . __ _ _ _ _ __. _.
,
'. l
. .
H PARTIAL LIST OF PERSONS CONTACTED Licensee i
L S. Binney, Director, Radiation Center '
l A. Hall, Reactor Supervisor
'
J. Higginbotham, Chairman of Reactor. Operations Committee i
S. Reese, Reactor Administrator l S. Smith, Scientific Instrument Technician j G. Wachs, Senior Reactor Operator t
i
'
INSPECTION PROCEDURE USED
!
IP 69001 Class 11 Non-Power Reactors ITEMS OPENED, CLOSED, AND DISCUSSED Opened 50-243/98-202-01 IFl Review the results of the 1997 drill and verify that the appropriate
- . degree cf difficulty was included in the dril /98-202-02 IFl Review the issue of documenting training for off-site personnel conceming emergency preparednes I l
'
Closed
!' None i
LIST OF ACRONYMS USED l CFR Code of Federal Regulations IFl Inspector Follow-up item t- IP - Inspection Procedure l l_
LCO Limiting Condition for Operations l Mw Megawatt
- 'NPR Non-Power Reactor
! 'NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission OSU Oregon State University RO Reactor operator
, ' ROC . Reactor Operations Committee l SRO Senior reactor operator TS Technical Specifications
,
TRTR Test, Research, and Training Reactor l
l l
t
-
, ! r t! ; :L .; k
'
,
-
,
-
'
. n gjJq)
2_a or r F o
-
O l
~a u
E,
.
)
x t
c a
. g O a e
e N M R R r E r A s r e G o E e t t m
.
A c e c r P a h a f o
e T r R a e
.
r l . h h a m C T
. e e 0 lc it 1 le
.
u l
'l 1 b
N E (
F la ia l
'n v a a
-
t g o
E
iS n) n E l T T - nC eI e r
~
A A pE e
.-
D D o w l
f m l i .r o l i
f r l
.
O d li
,
l Nde h e d r
.
? Ain t ht e
M S E at f o
R M l eb O E reeu ht o e in F e u d Tehin I ibn iq e Y)
Rd Wpn t N l l
ia n i t
r c
d u
- T e E ooC A r c l
c Nt NS -
t E (
d in E a n
.
) l Y - s a s SAa Noe o a
.
FTc ANY s
,
it w
I ( Ase t t
e , t e c e y
. MD n s e
- o n
p s lt ER s s :
u
. TO o B a i s
e d
o D
d e D l l i n
ic S
Y D (n a C l o d ir e f f
- S EN - ia W .
l
. C ,
h t
i d
v g o .
io PVY U L C r
S O r
N N g r N r a
g n
f o
t O n i
e W &N r
. e l n e u e e
OTYO t r lb u c d g
.
l p
u lo C P t e
c ia t
NFE E D e S u c r R
OLI T T E P b a p
. I E T W
l l
d o o r
TU e I
E t p M 1 CFW
- t e c p le I
E B V U 3 a
,E l
d u b PR N U E : o d a e S S R l C n NO
le l ,
o n h ls i
I T v r e c u t CN ri a Q e d s s t 3 ot L e u 0 n a a AE t i
n l y s a 3 e ht EP cI e it n C e w RO 4 pS A r o b t y
. R sT e o d u f i
.
v s b r E O nI iR l e e a e W N 2 S r
a h 3 v O le y r
e 7 hr o T b f c t P E is l
n A 9
d d
K 0 n 1 e l dr e C o o a 1 p l r e n r a w
- O - -
s F o o h ie D e m e
it c
,
f s v R l n
l i
l r
i h e r
0 d 7 u a:
I
9 F d n e ee l 3 9 e o b y 5 L ma : P h o n e it n
L S T d e t o it s
t t p e A P r s is r N e y U h M o d is e T t s s T t
t s e v I N 1 2 s a
f o s e m in a m : : t la n m U L B e 2 s r e n U
i r
e l
o I t
it lt b e l i S C e n u t r E
t a
e l
l s m m a d D y t 2 t U e u m m 7 O r
o S a 1 r N 9 t D e e o e 9 C a n h r C h r l
u o .
0 l a 0
- t u 1
/
t 1 o
g g O t
w d 0 y d e f e N it l it O e 0 r a h k e r m n e c 9 a h t c R O T 2 i v o 6 a r R s o
.
U e r m r o
f o
a
- n P b e E O - - a N R m t a s e l
M P r n u r lt e T
. :
c A E q S o t u S u R e : it S is s N N t
o r
S MU ET e c in e E
- 6
.
E 8 p TA l
t e
p V m r
e T 9 T R
e m e I T i s O d h O N E
T n I
P U S 9 i t
S I N A T N O S
- F
'
!
, .
'
?'
'.
'
e 2 6 o f
- 9 o 9
' d }
.
) e e .
x _
_
2 O x i x h O a
_
_
.
N a f t N M
-
og M t o _
a A s a t A s r
_
-
P E r g r E e e t e n ior e t c
h c in p h a T a ia T r r r d a
. a t e l h m h r t c C e C la u e 0 i
t 0 u d it 1
g n l
- 1
- l E 1 e r o !
E (
E ( c E e n v
'n ie e
e l
'n _
a c b a g e g iSn) r d a . l n)S d y
- nC el n h c - ine pE a t a pE o a u o n h q f m i t
e l
f m i o d g i .r e d O f v n a O f N d e lo in s l N de v ia it Ai n n t r
y Ai n E at i r f E at eb e o i
r eb ht o b f e l ht o 2 o v
.
e e
.
t t
p o
.
e O inb s e t O inb N n e c N i
l l
n o r
e x d l
il n A F a c e e A F a E
( c s w w E ( c _
_
N e r
l e le ie
_
_
l- ! b v O y n la l
c n e l -
Y n o i
a r A ,
e s r v e U e a b .
1[I N m : p e o :
I 4 e e D r t e T m d e e s d _
N e o l i t
w d l
o I
_
O :
. f C s - l e . C C o o . f e e o g
.
- N a g
r N f o n n N n r M
t n
e r O l c o ls t n O I _
_
a i
s l i -
R e t u
f i
c r r e t u
O m e o D e e p
d m c F e h e p t e e t
s l s e n lp s I Y lp n e R
p i lo n, it s- c p lo -
T u l C P e u C
-
S e a f r S
-
.
_
N n P l f o e 1l! _
n E
A o
s e
s r
o r
o l
_
7lI :
r :
e n f m _ e T e 1 o g r l _
A o d o 3 p n o :
_ d o
D l
e e C s i n
f l e C .
S v t e l e v .
F e i
s- e R ia n e e s
.
-
s y r
n L I
L f f u 0 c t
y o u y o a 3 y a it C n n s r it C r r e a e r e o g p e v f r e
f o v e a : e e :
S n a m s it S a in e E dr s e r
r - l ia A e o f f
l T
r ht c e
o l i t la r o a .
e n o l n _
F h o t o t o _
t it g N d i t _
a c e c _
I n n ,
in . d l
n . _
.
.
.
i t u dr n i v u _
n F o e o 3
F .
.
e c v r l P
- P S c ig p :
it -
e it n m L P e n L p u A A t g p A -
y U c S o n y U S T o : n i n T :
d s s ia 1 i s
m : f : t a r m : : t e 2 o r e n w t e 2 r e n I
t it e b e y f
o It it b e n u m m n m m l
U s u it n U u s m ic o N m 2 i N o e e o d io it a e
h u
r C r t
n : r u C O 1 t
/
y e e 1 d
/
y w d p it O e 0 r m l it e r n e c 0 a ic u n c a U iv o 9 f c .
U o o
.
e r 6 m ic o o P r m N R P e N n m d n m q
.
S
o u s sp e q
. :
S o u e Sl a el h e : S 6 S MU
e it c T S MU ET e it c 9 A
E T l e Vr v h a t u TA l e p V N m TA t p s Oten t n l l
.
m e I T i t
s O O C
e I T i n un ir T n N I
t S T I Ni b a d i t
S w 5lIl
O S
l l! 1 .
F
n .. .. ~ - . . . .
.. .
L t
PAGE 1 dF 2 ], t U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission !NSPECTION FOLLOW-UP SYSTEM (IFS) Nuclear Reactor Regulation I POWER REACTOR. FUEL FACILITY & VENDOR DATA ENTRY FORM OPEN NEW ITEMS ONLY -(non escalated)
.+ --
ITE NAME: Oregon State University _
REPORT NO.: I UNIT DOCKET NO.:
9 8 - 2 0 2 1 5 0 -
0 2 4 3 REVIEWED BY: Sv Weiss DATE: 6
-
l l -
2 -
_ Report Transmittal Date: Lead Responsible inspector Responsible Org. Code: ANY NEW ITEMS ? '
g Last Name: HITS Initials: No - Stop here h Bassett lA Q U P D N D g Yes - Contin _e
_
ltzm Seq. No.:'l 0 Item Type: F ! everity Level: Supplement N ,
f EA NO. l i
-
l
! TEM Unit 1: Unit 2: Unit 3: (Fill in the EA NO. if opening an * eel' item. The EA N STATUS: O can be obtained from EICS) :
_
i Title: _.Beview the results of the 1997 emeroencylesoonse drii (110 Cha.acters Atax)
-r Inspection Procedure Number: SALP Functional Area: Cause Code: Closeout Org. Code:
69001 ._P_S .
,
- 11_ , 31 P D N D h ,
-
-
NOV Summary / Comments: The dr;il for 1997 had been conducted but the scenario. drill notes, and critique of the drill were not available. The former Reactor
_ Administrator had the material stored on his nard drive but was unable to access it during the inspectio The results of the 1997 drill needs to be reviewed to verify that the appropriate degree of difficulty was included in the dril '
!
,
- NOTE: See back for CODES 1FSOPEN A96
- _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ - - - - - - - _ _ . - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ - _ _ - - _ _ - - - - - - _ - - _ - _ _ _ - . _ . - - - _ . _ . - - - - - - _ _ _ -----__ _ _ - _ _ _ _ . - - _ _ _ - - _ - _ . _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ - _ _
!. ' l ! l
_
-
_
.
a, '
'
-
-
.
-
_ 2 _ 6
-
f
-
- o 9
d
.
) e e .
i x
2 O x i x h O a e N a f t N M g M t o a A a t A s P E sr g r E r
e
_
e e n o t
_
h t i
r e c
.
c in p h a T a ia T r r r d a a e
.
_
t l . h
- e h
C r
a t
c l
m C
-
_
u e 0
-
_ it 0 lu d it 1
_
.
- 1 g n l ' 1 l
E 1 e r o l E (
_
E ( c E
.
_ e n
-
- 'n iv e l
'n a e e a
.
g c b e g
_
iS n) r d a . n)S d l
- nC eI n a
h y c - inC eI pE t a a pE o n h u o f m i t
q l m
f io d g e io.r
_ .r e d
_
.
O f v i n a O f N de lo n s l N d v ia it e Ain n t r
y Ain
.
_ E at i f E a e r n t
.
eb b o e l
eb ht o f v ht o
.
e e
.
o t .
e O inb s t p o O inb e e t
-
N i n l n r c d N l n
l o e x l
-
-
E A F( ca o s w e e w
A E
Fia
{ c
_
N e e r le lb ie O l _ y n n a v e l T! c d r A n o a
,
e s v e
_ U o r e a b ,
N 4 r
e
e p e o :
I T D r t e
_
m d e e s d N e o ! it w d l
o O :
. f C s- l e . C I
o o
.
_
C . f e e o .
_
_
- N a g
r N f o n n N g n r
.
.
_
.
t e O c o ls t O
M n e
r a
l i
f s l i n e
I R t u ic r r t u
O m e c D e e
p d m c F e ht e p t e e n
.
_
lp s l s e e lp s I Y p n lo it c p o R u i
C n
,
s- e u l
_ T S le P a f r S
C N n l P
f o e n
.
'
-
E r l
_
.
.
o e r o l A s : s o m :
T r e e 1 n f e
_
_ A o d 3 o g r o
!
- d o p o
_
D :
e C s in f l
le e in l e C S v it s e
.
R a e v e .
F e - s r n e s
_
I L f u 0 y t n L u c o
_
f y o a 3 n y
s y a
- t r C . e n r it C i
r e o g a e r e
p v f r e
f o v e a e e :
S n a m s t S a
! 1L in e r
E dr is - l e
r ia A e o f f
l A
r h c o
_
i t l a t e o la
_
_ e n o r n
_
_
_
F ht ie t o t o
_
t g N d it
_
o c n e l c .
_
_ n n ,
i dr id n 1 it u v : u
n F o e o 3 F 3 e S c v r l P
- t P c ig p :
it e i n m L P A g e n L
_
.
p u A t p A
-
-
-
y U c S _ o in y U S T o : n n T :
_
d s s ia s m : f : t a r m : :
-
t
.
_ e 2 o r e n w t
e 2 e n
- I t
it e b e y f
o t
it b e
.
n u m m n m m
_
l l l
U s ,
u it n U u s m ic o N m
.-
2 i e _ N o d it a e o h e r C io t l
r C O
- t u / e r n 1
u /
d 1 y p e d y it O w e 0 r m l it e r
- n e c 0 a ic u . n c o
a
.
U iv o 9 m
f c o
.
U r m o e P r 6 ic o P N m e d N m n p n u q
.
S
B_ o u s e q
.
S
o e : i Sl sa h e MU : it S 6
_
S MU e t
c h a el T S ET e c e V
A
_ E T TA l e p Vr v t u .
TA l
t p
_
_ m e I T i t
s Oe t t n un l
l i
m e I T i s O O C
_ i t S T In
- Nin b a d r
I t S T n N P O
s F
_ - ll i E
_
_
_
.