IR 05000284/1999201
| ML20204F057 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Idaho State University |
| Issue date: | 03/12/1999 |
| From: | NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20204F024 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-284-99-201, NUDOCS 9903250209 | |
| Download: ML20204F057 (17) | |
Text
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION I
'
Docket No: 501234 License No: R-110 Report No: 50-284/99-201
.I
.
Licensee: Idaho State University i
Facility: Idaho State University AGN-201 Reactor Facility i Location: Lillibridge Engineering Building Pocatello, Idaho Dates: March 2-4,1999 Inspector: Craig Bassett, Senior Non-Power Reactor inspector Approved by: Seymour H. Weiss, Director Non-Power Reactors and Decommissioning Project Directorate Division of Regulatory improvement Programs Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
,
9903250209 990312 PDR ADOCK 05000204 G PM ,
_
~ . .- . - - . - ..
- _.- . . . . - . - - - - -
.. 4 l
l l
l l<
,
I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY l
l This routine, announced inspection included onsite review of various aspects of the licensee's .
programs concerning the conduct of operations and emergency preparedness as the, .eiate to j the licensee's Class 2 Aerojet-General Nucleonics (AGN) AGN-201 M non-power reactor (NPR). The licensee's programs were directed toward the protection of public health and safety l and were in compliance with NRC requirements. No safety concerns or violations of regulatory requirements were identified.
l Conduct of Operations e Staffing, reporting, and record keeping met requirements specified in Technical l
Specifications (TS) Sections 6.1 and 6.9. Maintenance was being completed as l required. An Inspector Follow-up Item was established to review the resolution of log keeping issues at the facility, e Review and oversight functions required by TS Section 6.4 were acceptably completed by the Reactor Safety Committee. Changes made at the facility had been reviewed and approved as required and none were determined to constitute an unreviewed safety l questio e The requalification/ training program was up-to-date and acceptably maintained. Medical i examinations were being completed as require l
- Facility procedures and document reviews satisfied TS Sections 6.5 and requirement e The program for surveillance and Limiting Conditions for Operation verifications was !
being implemented in accordance with TS requirements.
l e The program for the control of experiments satisfied regulatory and TS Section requirement * No problems with respect to the Year 2000 concerns had been identified in the area of reactor operation Emeroency Preoaredness e - The current Emergency Plan used at the facility was dated April 1994. The implementing Procedures were being updated as needed and were adequate to implement the provisions of the Emergency Pla * Emergency response facilities and equipment were being maintained as required and responders were knowledgeable of proper actions to take in case of an emergenc e The licensee was maintaining updated Memoranda of Understanding with various support organizations as required.
l-
, ._ _
. . __ -_ _ ~--_ _.._. _ _ -._ _. . _ - _ _ _ - _ . . . _ - . _ __m._. . . - - . _ _ _ - _ - -
,
., o
,
- Annual drills were being conducted and critiques were being held as required by the Emergency Plan. An Inspector Follow-up Item was established to review documentation of the critique o"ne 1998 annual emergency dril * Emergency preparedness training for off-site and statf personnel was being completed as required.
,
n b
,_ , . , , m - - -
r - -- ' - - p-
, . - . - _ . - - . . . - - . - . - . -. . - . - _ - . . - . . - . - . - - - . - , - . . . . -
,
.
- ' Report Details
.
Summary of Plant Status ,
-The licensee's five watt Aerojet-General Nucleonics (AGN) AGN-201 M non-power research reactor was not operaticeal during this inspection due to problems with a piece of equipment located in each of the control rods, the shock-absorbing dashpot. However, a review of the applicable records indicated that the reactor was typically operated in support of laboratory j experiments, reactor system testing, reactor surveillances, and operator trainin )
1. Conduct of Operations )
- a. Oraanization. Operations. and Maintenance Activities (Inspection Procedure IIP 169001)
l
. l
. (1) iDsp6diordo.ggg i
To veniy Saffing, reporting, and record keeping requirements specified in Technical i Specifications 'TS) Sections 6.1 and 6.9 were being met, the inspector reviewed:
e organization and staffing for the facility,
,
e administrative controls and management responsibilities, e the AGN-201 Operating Log, '
e the Surveillance Procedures and Log, e the Maintenance Procedures and Log, and .
]
e the Annual Operating Report for the Idaho State University AGN-201 M Reactor l for the Calendar Year 199 .(2) Observations and Findinas
. Through discussicns with licensee representatives the inspector determined that !
. management responsibilities and the organization at the Idaho State University AGN-201 M Reactor Facility had not changed since the previous NRC inspection in _
. September 1997 (Inspection Report No. 50-284/97-201). The inspector determined !
that the Reactor Administrator retained direct control and overall responsibility for management of the facility as specified in the TS. . The Reactor Administrator -
. l reported to the designated University Officer at Idaho State University who is currently the Dean of the College of Engineerin The licensee's current operational organization consisted of the Reactor Administrator, a Reactor Supervisor, and three other people. All of these individuals were licensed to operate the reactor, four were Senior Reactor Operators (SROs) ;
and the other person was a Reactor Operator (RO). The Reactor Administrator and 1
,
the Reactor Supervisor fill full-time positions at the facility while all the others are basically part-time. This organization was consistent with that specified in the TS.
'
The Reactor Supervisor maintained a schedule for reactor operations and tracked j the completion of maintenance and surveillance activities. This practice kept
-
everyone aware of upcoming activities and helped ensure administrative control over operational aspects of the facilit .- -
- - . . -. - -
- _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ __ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ __
,
l 6 l l
l Through review of the Operating Log maintained by the licenne the in6pector i d% ermined that minimum shift staffing levelc for op?ratbn m e consistent with the I requ!rements specified in the T A review of the various facility Mas ?howed that they were being used to documen!
problems as required. This review demonstrated that maintenance wu beia; conducted consistent with the TS and applicable procederos. However, the review also disclosed that log sntries were not beir;g kept in a hound logbook, as had been the practice in the past. (This issue had also been described in a 1998 Reactor Safety Committee audit.) Because oithe engning problems with and repair of the control rod dashpois, detailed maintenance, surveillance, and health perpics entries ,
were being mada en loose-leaf notebook paper and baintined in a three-ring i bindcr. When compaled with the entries logged W b Operating Log of activities and operations affecting the reactor, the inspect u cetermined that the " loose-leaf l paper iog entries" appeared to provMe geater oetail of all the activities that had !
bean conducted by the licensee. It was noted that the "! nose-leaf popw log ermicC had been signed as required for officia! log entdes But, becue the entries were made on loose-leaf paper, the possibility existed that some of the pages could be micplaced or lost. When asked about this practice, the licensee indicated that the ;
vaious logs maintained at the facility. te, the Maintenarte Log, the Gurvemenco l Log the Health Physics Log, and the OperaMg Log, cftm contained the wme ;
infornstion and this resulted in a dup!! cation of erfon A mew of the log keeping practices at the facility was underway and affet to cwo2date the recorded information into one or two logs was being considered. The licensee was considering keeping a summary of the important work / maintenance / surveillance ;
evolutions in a separate bound log The other ".acsa-leaf paper log entrier waid be kept as well, but would be maintcined in a separate ponnwnuit h Tna ncensee was informed that the resolution of these log l'eeping issues would be tracked by the NRC as an Inspector Follow-up Item (IFI) and would be reviewed during e subsequent inspection (IFl 50-284/99-201-01).
(3) Qgnpiggns Staffing, reporting, and record keeping met the requirements specified in TS Sections 6.1 and 6.9. Maintenance was being completed as required. An inspector Follow-up Item was established to review the resolution of log keeping issues at the I
facilit b. Review. Audit. and Desion Chance Functions (IP 69001)
(1) inspection _ Scope in order to verify that the lensee had established and conducted reviews and audits as required and to determine whether modificetions to the facility were consistent i with 10 CFR 50.59 and the TS Section 6.4, the inspector reviewei
- recent Reactor Safety Committee meeting minutes, e the Charter of the Idaho State University (ISU) Reactor Safety Committe _ _ _
-_ __ .
. - _ - - .- - - -- --.
.
s completed audits and reviews, ana
- changes reviewed under 10 CFR 50 5 (2) Observations and Findinas
-
The inspector reviewed the Reactor Safety Committee's (RSC's) meeting minutes from October 1996 to the present. These meeting minutes showed that the RSC had met at the required frequency and had considered the types of topics outlined by the T The inspector noted that members of the safety committee completed audits of various aspects of the reactor facility operations, programs, and procedures. The inspector noted that, since the last NRC inspection. audits had been completed by the RSC in those areas outlined in the TS. The audits were structured so that Lhe various aspects of the licensee's operations and safety programs were reviewed
] annually. Major facility documents and plans, including the Emergency Plan and the
- Security Plan, were reviewed biennially. The inspector noted that the audits and the l resurting findings were acceptable and that the licensee responded and tock corrective actions as neede ,
! Through review of applicable records and interviewe with licensee personnel, the l inspector determ'ned that all proposed changes that had been initiated and/or
,
j coinpleted at the facility since the last NRC operations inspection had undergone a ,
'
review as required. It was noted that none of the changes were determined to constitute an unreviewed safety question or require a change to T (3) Cqnclusions
,
Review and oversight functions required by TS Section 6.4 were acceptsbly completed by the RSC. Changes made at the facility had been reviewed and approved as required and in accordance with 10 CFR 50.5 i c 90erator Licenges. Reaualificationand Medical Activities (IP 69001)
(1) Insoection S_qoaq To determme that operator requalification activities and training were conducted as required and that medical requirements were met, the inspector reviewed:
e active license status, e logs and records of reactivity manipulations,
- Written examinations, e training lectures and records, and
- medical examination record (2) Observations a3d Findinas As noted above, there are currently four qualifaed SROs and one quakfied RO .
employed at the facility. All of the operators' licenses wore current. From
.
.. - . . . - - . . . -_ . - . . . - - _ . - . - . - . - . - . . . . . . - . - . . .
.
I
'
l
,
discussions with the licensee the inspector noted that one operator hr.d been removed from active status because he had been out of the country. The inspector verified that this individual, who had since retumed to !SU, was in the process of completing the required requalification training and would demonstrate competence as required by the program before being reinstated and resuming licensed act;vitie A review of the logs and records showed that training was being conducted and examinations were being administered in accordance with the licensee's requalification and training program. It was noted that lectures had been given as .
j stipulated and that training reviews had been documented. Records of quarterly l reactor operations, reactivity manipulations, and other operations activities were
'
being maintained and showed that active duty status was maintained. Records indicating the completion of annual written and console examinations and supervisory evaluations were also maintained. The inspector also noted that operators were receiving the required medical examinations at the frequency specified by the program.
,
(3) Conclusions L
The requalification/ training program was up-to-date and acceptably maintaine Medical examinations were being completed as require d. Procedures and Procedural Comoliance (IP 69001)
(1) Inspection Scope t
i To determine whether facility procedures met the requirements outlined in l TS Sections 6.5 and 6.6, the inspector reviewed:
l l e the General Operating Rules and Operating Procedures Manual, L e selected maintenance and surveillance procedures, l- e selected forms and checklists used at the facility, and i e procedural reviews and update :(2) Observations and Findinga The licensee's procedures were found to be acceptable for the current facility status
,
and staffing level. It was noted that the procedures specified the rasponsibilities of l the various members of the staff. The inspector determined that the procedures
'
were being updated as needed and that substantive revisions to procedures, checklists, and forms were routinely presented to the RSC for review and approval
~
as required by TS.
l.
! The results recorded in the AGN-201 Operating Log, the Maintenance Log, and the Surveillance Log indicated that operations were completed in accordance with the applicable procedures.
!=
',O <
V f
~: m _ _ __ .- _ _ _ . . _ . _
, . ; . . . . - . . . . . . - -. .-. .. .- - - - .. - - - . . . . - . . . ~ . - -
,; * J l-I l.
o 5-
' (3) Conclusions
,
Facility procedures and document reviews satisfied TS Sections 6.5 and 6.6 l- requirement '
i Ie. Surveillance (IP 69001) l l
l
- (1) Insoection Sggsp, t
l To determine that surveillance and Limiting Conditions for Operation (LCO) activities l and verifications were being completed as required by TS Sections 3 & 4, the i inspecthr reviewed:
e selected Surveillance Procedures and the Surveli!ance Log, I
e selected surveillance data sheets, records, and tests, i e calibration procedures and records, and I e the AGN-2010perating Lo '
(2) Observations and Findinos The inspector determined that selected daily, semiannual, annea!, and biennial checks, tests. and/or calibrations for TS-required surveillance and LCO sctivit"
.
l verifications were completed as stipulated. Surveillance and LCO ver!!! cations 1 reviewed were generally completed on schedule and in accordance with licensee procedums. All the recorded results were within the TS and proce.iurai / prescribed paramemrs. The racords and logs reviewed were complete and were being maintained as require l
@) Conclusions The program for surveillance and LCO verifications was being carried out in accordance with TS requirement Exoeriments (IP3.9001)
(1) Insoection Scept In order to verify that experiments were being conducted in accoivbnce with the guidelines stipulated in TS Section 6.7, the inspector reviewe e the AGN.201 Experiment Procedures, e the AGN 201 Operating Log, '
4 the Rules and Procedures Governing Isotope Production and Disposition e selected Isotope Production and Di.y>osition (IPD) Forms, l e potential hazards identification, and j- e ' contro!s established for handling irradiated items.
l.
l
i
!
, , , . ,_ _ _
, -
- . . . - - - -
-
~ - .. - . . . . - - -- -
r,
'
(2) Observations aMfi din D _gt The inspectcr noted that all the experiments being conducted at the facility were well-established, ^trAtine' procedures that had been in place for several years. No new or unknown-type expert.ments had been initiated, reviewed, or approved since the last inspection. The experiments that were conducted were completed under the cognizance of the Reactor Supervisor and a Senior Reactor Operator as require The results of the experiments were documented in the Operating Log and on the appropriate iPD frams. It was noted that, prior to the experiments, proper i- engineering and/or mdfation protection controls were implemented to limit exposure to radiatior,.
,
(3) Conclusions The license's program for the control of experiments satisfied reguutory and TS Section 6.7 requirements.
F g. Year 2000 Concerns Review (1) Inspection Scope
{
To determine the status of the licensee's preparations to deal with the potential
- problems caused by the Year 2000 (Y2K), the inspector reviewed
i e the licensee's operating system,
'
s the licensee's security system, il! e the countmg system used at the facility, and I e the ISU approach to the Y2K proble I j (2) Observations and Findings
. The licensee had reviewed their operations, security, and counting systems and had
- concluded that the only problem concerning Y2K would exist with the gamma
>
spectrometer used at tha facihty. In crder to correct the problem, the licensee had purchased a new computer and new software from the vendor, EG&G ORTEC.
- , Nothing had been identified that would pose a problem to reactor operations and no
.
instances were identified that codd pose a threat to public health and safety. The security system at the facility was verified to be Y2K compliant by ISU Public Safety (Campus Security). Idaho State University had also analyzed the Y2K status -
p campus-wide and was taking actions as neede (3) Conchyions
No problems had been identified canceming reactor operation't Y2K issues with respect to the gamma spectrometer were being addressed, f
r
- .
'
a. The Emeraency Plan and implementina Proced'Jres (IP 69001)
(1) Inspection Scoce To determine compliance with the requirements of 10 CFR 50.54(q) and the licensee's Emergency Plan, the inspector reviewe e the Emergency Plan and implementing Frocedures, e RSC meeting minutes, and e recent revisions and update (2) Observations andFindinas The current version of the Emergency Plan (E Plan) approved for use at the facuity was Revision (Rev.) 5 dated April 26,1994. The inspector noted that the plan was I audited and reviewed biennially by the RSC as require The licensee had reviewed and revised the implementing Procedures as neede The procedures and associated forms were last updated in October 1997. The ;
inspector determined that the procedures appeared to be acceptable to impbment l the provisions etipulated in the E-Pla During this review, the inspect r ncted that Table i specified in Section 3. on p?.ge 5, was missing from the E-Plan. It was also noted that Appendix 2 of the copy ci the E-Plan being reviewed had not been updated to reflect the current staffing at the facility. The licensee immediately corrected these problem (3) ConclusioEM The current Emergency 7 tan used at the facility was dated April 1994. The imptementing Procedures were being updated as needed and were acceptable to
,
implement the various provisions of the Emergency Plan, b. Emeraettgv Precamcl.n,ess Proaram Imdementatbn (IP 69001)
(1) Inspection Scope To determine the adequacy of the licensee's Emergency Preparedness Program, the inspector reviewed:
e incilities and equipment designated for emergency response, e instrumentation and supp;ies on hand, and
- emergency responso personnel t'aining.
Y
?
. ._ . _ _ _ _ . . - . _ _ _ _ _ . _ . - _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ , _ . _ _ . - _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _
.. . 7 . -
J f
L i i
(2) Observations and Findinas
!' The facilities and equipment set aside for emergency response were being l l' maintained as required in the E-Plan.:The inspector observed an inventory of the !
l' equipment and materials maintained in the facility Emergency Locker and noted that )
l all items required to be in the locker were in place. A review of past inventories I conducted by the licensee indicated that the supplies were being inventoried annually as require : Through records review and interviews with licenseo personnel, emergency '
,
- responders were determined to be knowledgeable of the proper actions to take in L case of an emergenc (3) Conclusions Emergency response facilities and equipment were being maintained as required and responders were knowledgeable of proper actions to take in case of an emegenc l l c. Off-site Sucoort (IP 69001)
(1) triggection Scope To verify the adequacy of the off-site support that would be provided to the licensee L - in case of an emergency, the inspector reviewec; i- * the Emergency Plan and implementing Procedures, e - Memoranda of Understanding, and i
- communications capabilitie )
(2) Observations and Findingg t .
.
,
Through interviews with licensee personnel and document review, the inspector
[ determined that a separate Memorandum of Understanding MOU) had been j updated and was being maintained with: 1) the Bannock Reg.onal Medical Center, 2) Idaho State Police, and 3) the Pocatello City Fire and Police Departments. A separate MOU with a private ambulance service was not needed because the Fire ;
. Department provided that type of service as part of their duties. Communications capabilities were acceptable with these support groups and had been tested on a periodic basis as stipulated in the E-Pla (3) Conclusions
! ' The licensee was maintaining updated Memoranda of Understanding with various j. - support organizations as require I
'
!
I-
.'r u , ,
. m-e- ,r-w . - - '~ , . 1--
-
m-- - , _ . . - * . r +=et * ' - w 1 -~
.
d.
I l
'
9 1 d. Emeroency Preparedness Exercises and DnPs (IP 69Q0_1_1 (1) insoection Scope To determine that the licensee was conducting the exercices and drills as specified in the Emergency Plan, the inspector reviewed:
6 recent drill scenarios, i e documentation of the critiques recent dnils and l e other associated documentation of recent dntis and emergency exercise (2) Observations and Findinas l The inspector noted that onsite emergency drills had been conducted annually as required by the E-Plan. On alternating years the drill scenarios were designed to involve and require the participation of the various off-site support agencie Critiques were held fetiowing the drills to discuss the strengths and weaknesses identified during the avarcise and to develop possible solutions to any problems identified. The rer .r .sse critiques were generally documented and filed The licensee acknowleoged the importance of conducting appropnate drills. and inat drills typically highlight areas for improvemen During the review of the drill scenarios and associated documentation, the inspector noted that no critique documentation had been completed for the drill that was conducted on February 27,1998. The lim osae acknowledged this oversight and committed to complete the critique write up ,sace the documentation in the appropriate file, and forward a cenu of th a Pque documentation to the inspector within two weeks. The licerser u c m hat complet;on of the documentation of the critique for the 1998 anami s ager cy drill would be followed by the NRC as an IFl and would be reviewed du .) a sutoequent inspection (IFl 50-284/99-201-02).
(3) Conclusions Annual drills were being conducted and critiques were being held as required by the Emergency Plan. An inspector Follow-up Item was established to review documentation of the critique of the 1998 ennual emergency dril e. EmgLqpilev Preparedness Trainina (IP 69001)
(1) 1.rlspaqtion Scope in order to verify the ade- my of the licensee's emergency training, the inspector l reviewed-e the Emergency Pian, e training records for off-site personnel, and e training records for staff personne ..
.-. _-. . - - .. - -._.~.. - -,-.-. - -..- - . - -.- .. ,.
r
.O g
r
!
-
i (2) Observations and Findinos ' ,
!
l The inspector noted that the emergency preparedness and response training was
,. being completed as required. Training for off-site and reactor staff personnel was L ,
conducted ennually and documented as stipulated by the E-Pla j
'
f .(3) Conclusions i-
'
Emergency preparedness training for off-site and reactor staff personnel was being completed as require . Follow-up on Previously identified items a. InspeQqn Scooe192701. 92702)
The inspector reviewed the licensee's actions taken in resr 'se to previously identified Inspector Follow-up Item l
b. Observation and Findinos (1) (Open) Inspector Follow-up Item (IFI) 50-284/97-201-01 - Follow-up on the licensee's actions to replace all the dashpots, perform aggressive inspection of the control rods annually, and modify the safety rod drive logic circuits to allow manual
~
L scramming of the reacto j
!
During a previous inspection in September 1997, the inspector followed up on an ,
event the licensee reported conceming the failure of the Safety Rod 2 (SR-2)
- dashpot. The licensee took various immediate corrective actions and then made ,
preparations to take further actions in the future. These additional corrective actions : !
were to include: 1) replacing all existing dashpots with new units, 2) performing annual inspections of the control elements with particular emphasis on the end region of the capsule for any evidence of weld cracking or other signs of deterioration, and 3) modifying tna safety rod drive logic circuits to allow the safety rods to be manually withdrawn at the conclusion of reactor operation instead of scramming the reacto The inspector reviewed the progr'ess the licensee had made concerning the above y noted corrective actions.~ The inspector noted that more intensive inspections were (- being performed of the control rods to check for weld cracking or other signs of deterioration. With respect to the dashpota, the licensee indicated that they were being replaced but that continuing problems had been encountered with this work.
ll ' As a result,' the licensee was in the process of evaluating the design of the dashpots l and intbating some needed modifications to provide better lateral support and added I strength to the dashpots. This was ongoing during the inspection. The safety rod L drive logic circuits had not been modified in the existing control console because this
! action was awahing implementation of the console upgrade project that is still
-
pending. Therefore, this item remains'open.
._ . _ - . _ _ _ _ _ .-
. ,- ~ _ . . . , - ., _ _
, .
"
l 11 ;
(2) (Open) Inspector Follor-up item (IFI) 50-284/97-201-04 - Follow-up on the l development and implementation of a form used to calculate and record rod worths and the shut down margi It was noted during the inspection in September 1997 that one surveillance specified I in TS 4.1.b required the licensee to calculate the total excess reactivity and shut l down margin for the reactor on an annual basis. When the inspector reviewed the records for this surveillance, it was noted that no specific documentation could be found which indicated that the shut down margin had been calculated during 199 Because the actual calculations could not be located, the licensee indicated that documentation procedures would be modified so that a form would be produced on which rod worths were recorded and the shut down margin explicitly calculated and j recorde The inspector reviewed the progress the licensee had made with respect to this issue. The documentation procedures had been modified to require the completion of a form documenting the results of the rod worth and shut down margin calculations. A form had been developed and had been presented to the RSC for approval but this was still pending at the time of the inspection. Because final approval of the form to be used to document the calculations is still pending, this item remains ope (3) (Open) Inspector Follow-up ltem (IFI) 50-284/97-201-05 - Follow-up on the Reactor Safety Committee review of an anticipated upgrade to the reactor console and on the modification itsel During the September 1997 inspection, it was noted that an upgrade to the reactor console was being considered by the RSC. At that time it was thought that the upgrade would not constitute an unreviewed safety questio The inspector reviewed the status of the reactor console upgrade. It was noted that this issue had indeed been reviewed extensively by the RSC and that all the questions and concerns of the committee were being addressed and resolve However, the console upgrade had not been completed as of the date of this inspection. Therefore, this item will remain open as wel (4) (Closed) Unresolved item (URI) 50-284/98-201-01 - Review an Unresolved item concerning a licensee-identified apparent violation cf TS 6.4. During an inspection in June 1998, the inspector reviewed a memorandum that outlined the details of a licensee-identified apparent violation of TS 6.4.3.a which required that an audit of the conformance of facility operatien to the Technical Specifications and applicable license conditions be performed at least once every twelve months. The audit was originally scheduled for January 1998 but was not performed until June 1998. Because tne results of the audit were not available during the 1998 inspection and any follow-up actions that might be required as a l result audit had not been initiated or completed, the issue was left open to be l
reviewed during a subsequent inspectio . _ _ . _ . _ _ . _ . - . . - ~ . _ . - . _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ . . _ _
,
l- \
The ir.spector reviewed the issue of the failure to complete an audit within the
'
established time frame. The completed audit results were reviewed by the inspector. The audit was complete and problem areas had been noted. The l licensee was in the process of addressing the issues raised. The licensee was informed that this licensee-identified and corrected violation was being treated as a Non-Cited Violation (NCV), consistent with Section Vll.B.1 of the NRC Enforcement l Policy (NCV 50-284/99-201-03) This item is considered closed.
I c. Conclusions
'
One open item identified during a previous inspection was closed; three items remain ope ]
4. ExitInterview The inspection scope and results were summarized on March 4,1999, with licensee l representatives. The inspector discussed the findings for each area reviewed. The i licensee acknowledged the findings and did not identify as proprietary any of the material provided to or reviewed by the inspector during the inspection.
i i
I i
i
, , .~ . . - , - . - ~ . ~
p,+-
r L
PARTIAL LIST OF PERSONS CONTACTED Licensee i
- J. Bennion, Reactor Administrator T. Gansauge, Reactor Supervisor J. Kunze, Dean, College of Engineering INSPECTION PROCEDURE USED IP 69001 Class 11 Non~ Power Reactors
-
i ITEMS OPENED, CLOSED, AND DISCUSSED l
' 1
. Opened -
]
50-284/99-201-01 IFl Follow-up on the licensee's actions to resolve the log keeping issues at the facility. Review of the documentation of the critique
.
.3
'
for the 1998 drill (Paragraph 1.a.(2)).
50-284/99-201-02 IFl Follow-up on and review the licensee's documentation of the critique for the 1998 annual emergency drill (Paragraph 2.d.(2)).
..
50-284/99-201-03 NCV Failure to perform an audit of the conformance of facility operation i to the Technical Specifications and applicable license conditions be performed at least once every twelve months as required by TS 6.4.3.a. (Paragraph 3.b.(4)).
Closed 50-284/98-201-01 URI Review an Unresolved item concerning a licensee-identified apparent violation of TS 6.4.3.a. (Paragraph 3.b.(4)).
50-284/99-201-03 NCV Failure to perform an audit of the conformance of facility operation to the Technical Specifications and applicable license conditions be performed at least once every twelve months as required by TS 6.4.3.a. (Paragraph 3.b.(4)).
' Discussed 50-284/97-201-01 IFl Follow-up on the licensee's actions to replace all the dashpots, perform aggressive inspection of the control rods anr.ually, and modify the safety rod drive logic circuits to allow manual
,
scramming of the reactor (Paragraph 3.b.(1)).
50-284/97-201-04 . IFl Follow-up on the development and implems.itation of a form used
,
to calculate and record rod worths and the shut down margin
'
(Paragraph 3.b.(2)).
.
.e e '- No <e m- - , . . , - - r s - m-.-,e4 , - c -
a , , --
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . - . - . . . . . . - - . - . .. -
'
n
50-284/07-201-05 IFl Follow-up on the Reactor Safety Committee's review of an anticipated upgrade to the reactor console and on the modification l itself (Paragraph 3.b.(3)). j l
l LIST OF ACRONYMS USED AGN Aerojet-General Nucleonics CFR Code of Federal Regulations E-Plan Emergency Plan IFl Inspector Follow-up Item IP inspection Procedure IPD isotope Production and Disposition ISU Idaho State University LCO Limiting Conditions for Operation MOU Memorandum of Understanding NCV Non-Cited Violation NPR Non-Power Reactor NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission RO Reactor operator RSC Reactor Safety Committee 1-SRO Senior reactor operator l SR-2 - Safety Rod Number 2 TS Technical Specifications URI Unresolved item Y2K Year 2000