IR 05000288/1988002
| ML20151B246 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Reed College |
| Issue date: | 06/29/1988 |
| From: | Cillis M, Yuhas G NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20151B238 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-288-88-02, 50-288-88-2, NUDOCS 8807200300 | |
| Download: ML20151B246 (10) | |
Text
_ _ -
'
. l
,. .. . , , :)
'
.U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l l
'
REGION V
I i
Report No. 50-288/88-02 Docket No. 50-288 .
License No. R-112 ,
,
Licensee: Reed College Portland, Oregon 97202 Facility Name: Reed Reactor Facility (RRF)
'
Inspection at: ' Portland, Oregon - Reed College Inspection. Conducted: June 1-3, 1988 Inspectors: $ 9 1kuI w Acr3 (dm9/%C M. Cif , SentoFRa(iAtfon Specialist 04te Signed Approved by: bh a =
~
-
' 6htlRY '
G. P.(YDias, Chief . Da'te Signed i Faciliths Radiological Protection Section ;
Summary:
Inspection on June 1-3, 1988 (50-288/88-02)
{
Areas Inspected: Routine unannounced inspection by a regionally based inspector of reactor operations, including organization, procedures,
,.
t requalification training, surveillance, health physics, design changes, audits and committees, emergency planning, experiments, environmental monitoring, i transportation of radioactive material, review of open items, and c tour of !
the facilit Inspection procedures 30703, 40750, 82745 were addresse l l
Results: In the fourteen areas addressed, no violations or deviations were identified. An overall improvement in the licensee's performance was
! exhibited.
'
i
! l
>
l
'
R -
_ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ l
, . . .
.
i
, .-. ..
DETAILS Pyrsons Contacted
- Dr_. _ Cronyn, Vice President Provost !
- Dr. L. Ruby, Director, Reed Reactor Facility (RRF)
- H. Follock, Assistant Director, RRF .
, *D. Griffin, Chairman, Reactor Operations Committee i
- P. N. Terdal, Reactor Superviso i
- Denotes those individuals attending the exit f.nterview on June 3, ?98 , Reactor Operation Organization I
The licenspo's organizational staucture was examined and found to be ,
consistent'with Technical Specifi ations, Section I.1, and the !
licensee's Administrative Procedure, dated October 198 l
'l A new Director assumed responsibility for the safe operation of the ,
reactor and its associated equipment in September 1987. The ;
previous acting Director was appointed as the RRF's Associate l Director. Both the Director and Associate Director are part time j positions (i.e. three days per week). The Directors' working days j
are staggered such that one or both individuals are at the facility throughout the normal work week of Monday through f?ida !
The new Director previously held the same position at another Research Reactor and held a Senior Reactor Operator's license. The Director had also been a Nuclear Engineering instructor at University of California at Berkeley fo_r twenty-seven years prior to
.
assuming his new responsibilities at the RRF.
l :
j The inspector noted that there was a significtnt improvement in the j RRF staffs' performance since the previous inspections conducted '
from 1985 through 1987.
'
No violations or deviations were identified.
j Procedures s
- An examination of the licensee's Standard Operating Procedures (SOPa) was conducted for the purpose of verifying compliance with Technical Specifications, Section I.S.
j Actions were taken by the licensee's staff after the previous NRC inspection to review and revise the RRFs Administrative Procedures and the RRF SOP Resources to accomplish this were made available I
during the summer of 1987, at which time all of the SOPS were j
'
revised as described in paragraph 2(e) of Inspection Report 50-288/87-01.
i a
v
, , . , . ~ , , - --..,,r -,,--4-
. -- .-,.y-- ., , .v , - ---.--m - * -.,-,-,---,-..--~w,..., ,,, --.%.-- -e -
-y,--..-- . - . .- r
J
,
- o
.. t ,
'*
, .. . .
j
_
The inspector disclosed that several of-the revised. procedures:have not been implemented even'though.they had been ' reviewed and: approved by the Reactor Operations Committee. 1ho-RRF-Director informed the
,
inspeccor that he wanted-to personally review the revised procedures to ensure they were adenuate prior to .their~ being implemented.. The:
- inspector emphr.31 zed the importance for implementing the revis'ed -
procedures in a timely manne The licensee's performance'in this arca appeared to be improving and seemed capable of meeting its safety objective No violations-o deviations were identifie Loos and Records The inspector' examined the following facility logs and operational-records for the period of July 1,1987, through June 1,198 Console log
Environmental monitoring log
Startup. check list ,
"
_ Shutdown check lists -l
Reactor operator records
Weekly, Monthly, Bi-monthly, Semi-annual and Annual check lists j that are used for verifying that the Technical Specifications I are performed at their required frequenc _ Health Physics Survey Records ,
Maintenance' Log i
Operator Requalification Program Training Records The review did not disclose any missed Technical Specification surveillances or abnormal finding l The licensee's performance in this area seemed to be improving and l seemed capable of meeting its safety objectives. No-violations.or deviations were identified, Site Tour l
A tour of the RRF facility was conducted. During~.the tour the .)
inspector noted that the licensee's-posting and labeling practices were consistent with 10 CFR Part 19.11 and-10 CFR 20.20 Independent measurements were performed with a Model'RO-2, ion chamber, survey meter, serial number.Z694, that is due for calibration on October 10, 1988. The independent measurement's confirmed that the licensee'r. posting practices were' consistent with 10 CFR 20.20 The inspector witnessed a Subcritical. Multiplication Experiment that was conducted on June 2, 1988. A group of students from a. local college participated in the experimen The inspector not6d that reactor operations were conducted in accordance with the dRFIs SOP . . -- . -
, . - .--- ,, - , .-,
, . - -.
.
.
.
,
.
3~
The inspector noted that the. facility was exceptionally clean and that' portable radiation survey instruments sere in current calibratio The licensee seemed to be maintaining the'ir previous level of performance in this are No violations or deviations were identifie Requalification Training The inspector reviewed reactor operating logs and tiaining files for each reactor operator to verify that the licenses was maintaining tne requalification program for all reactor operators in' accordance with the licensee's NRC approved program of 1980. The prograa was designed to meet the requirements prescribed in 10 CFR 50.54(i) and 10 CFR 55, Appendix A. Discussions ~of recent changes made to 10 CFR Part- 55 and of Information Notice (IN) 87-22, "Operator Licen5,ing:
Requalification Examination at Nonpower Reactors," were held with the licensee's staf The review disclosed that the program was being implemented in-accordance with the regulatory. requirements and IN 87-2 The licensee stemed to be maintaining their previcus level of performance in this area and their program appeared adequate to accomplish its safety objectives. No violations or deviations were identi fied, Surveillances The inspector verified that surveillances prescribed in the Technical Specifications were performed at the required frequencie Surveillance records for the period of March 1987 through June 1988 were examine Data related to the following surveillances were reviewed:
Pool water analysis for conductivity Pool water temperature monitoring Fuel element inspections Control element inspections
Control element drop times
Operational checks of reactor instrumentation channels and safety. circuits listed in. Table I and II of the TS Ventilation system functional checks-- i i
Calibration and functional checks of radiation monitoring '
equipment identified in Section G of the TS
Other surveillances established by the licensee's SOPS-Improvements in the documentation of maintenance activities and !
surveillance records were observed. The inspector .was informed, that the new eschod for performing: rod drop time measurements, using~a computer system, was' expected to be ready by tra end of the summer scnool semester. The new method is expected 'o provide the licensee with a more precise method for measuring the drop times. The i
. - .
.
.. .
, .
licensee currently uses a stop watch to perform this surveillance chec The licensee's performance in this. area appeared to be improving an seemed fully capable of meeting its safety objectives. No O violations or deviations were toentified, Experiments The inspection disclosed that~two new experiments had been approved by the Reactor Operations Committee in accordance with Technical Specification requirement .
No violations or deviations were identifie Review and Audits The licensee's review and audit functions assigned to the Radiation Safety Committee (RSC) and Reactor Operations Committee (ROC)~were examined and were found to be consistent with the regulatory requirements prescribed in Technical Specifications. Section- RSC and ROC meeting minutes and aud!t reports for 1987 and 1988 vere-reviewed as part of the inspection. The inspector noted that.bot committee's had met at a greater frequency than was required by -
their respective charters and the technical specification The inspectors concluded that the licensee's review and audit program met or exceeded the Technical Specifications requirement No violations or deviations were identifie , Cheages The licensee's staff stated and a review of records / logs diheussed in paragraph 2.c indicated that there had been no~ changes made-to the facility that'would require a safety evaluation be made pursuant to 10 CFR Part 50.59. The inspector verified that procedure change were properly evaluated for their safety considerations pursuant to 10 CFR Part 50.5 No violations or deviations were identified, Health Physics l
'
1) Liquid and Solid Waste No liquid or solid waste was gercrated or disposed of since the i previous inspection perio No violations or deviations were identifie I 2). Persannel Monitoring I
i
.
-, 4 ,e m, w - m+ ~ " t w *- ",~r '~~ 1 ,
r
-, . . . . .
'
.
,
. . . . -5'M: l, a :l The. licensee's program for assuring compliance with 10 CFR Part 20.202 was examined.and-was found.to'be consistent with 10 CFR=
Part'20.101 and 10 CFR Part 20.10 No violations or deviations were identifie'. d 3). _ Radioactive Material Shipments and Receipt ,
A-review of radioactive material shipping and receiving records'
disclosed that activities related to this subject area were in ,
compliance with 10 CFR Part 20,205, 10 CFR Part 71, and .
D Department of Transportatio'n regulations prescribed in 49_CFR Parts 173-17 No violations or deviations were identifie ). General Employee Training The licensee's General-Employee (GET) training pro' gram, for assuring compliance with 10 CFR Part 19.12 "Instructions t Workers," was examine GET training ~1esson plans, attendance records, and hand-out material .ere reviewe The inspector concluded that the licensee's GET program met or exceeded 10 CFR 19.12 requirement No violations or deviations were identifie ). Surveys
~
The inspector verified that dire'ct radiation surveys, co,tamination surveys', and special surveys ar'e performed on a rot...ne basis. The review disclosed that-no abnormal radiation 'l measurements were identified and that contamination surveys .l continue to show no activity above backgroun l The inspector noted that the licensee does~not; routinely sample l the reactor pool water for radioactivity levels, does:not have ;
any survey instruments for performing alpha ~or. neutron measurements, and does not have'a portable ~ air sample The above observations were discussed with the-licensees staf Both the Director and Assistant Director stated that I arrangements have been made with off-site agencies to provide such monitoring instrumentation during emergencies. The !
Directors added that the ROC had recommended that a-schedule be I developed for sampling the reactor pool water on a routin basis, such as monthly or quarterly.' ,The Assistant Director stated'that action would be taken to obtain and post some control neutron badges in'the RRF to determine what the neutron dose rate may be from reactor operations. The Directors also c.tated that the RRF's stack and reactor bay Constant Air Monitors (CAMS),- which operate continuously, would provide an early alarm functiod in the event of a fuel lea _ _
.. . _ ~ . .
..
..: i
.' - .. '6
'
.e s
The above observations were 4)so discussed at the exit interview. Tha inspector was informed-that the. observations 1 would be brought-to the attention of the RRF health physicist for resolutio it In.the areas inspected,Lthe' licensee's programs-exhibit'ed weaknesses as detailed above; however, the overall. program appeared adequate to accomplish its safety objectives. .No violations or deviations were identifie . . :s 6). Environmental Monitoring TFi licensee's environmental monitoring program prescribe'd in 50P-20, "Environmental Sampling," was examine The program had not changed from what is described in Inspection Report 50-288/87-0 Results of the licensee's off site monitoring (e.g., water sampling, soil sampling, and direct Thermoluminescent Dosimeters ( ^'.0) measurements) performed ,
since the previ,ous period 'lere reviewe The inspector concurred .ith the licensee's_ observations that there had been no detectable or meaningful increases of radioactivity .in the environs as a result of RRF operation ~
In the area inspected, the' program appeared capable of eccomplishing its safety objectives. No violations or deviations were identifie .) Effluent Monitoring The principal airborne radionuclide released from the facility was Argon-4 =
Inspection Report 50-288/87-01 identified that.the licensee monitors airborne releases witt constant air sampler (CAM)
that monitors Ar-41 and parti ~ e releases frot the reactor
~
pcol a'rea and a stack CAM me - . that monitors particulate releases. On a high CAM alarm, the RRF ventilation. system is diverted from an unfiltered exhaust system into a filtered exhaust system contain ..; a HEPA filte Calibration of the pool and stack monitors is-performed .
annually. '7he alarm set points are based on.the maxicum permissible concentrations for Ar-41 that is prescribed in 10 CFR 20, Appendix B, Table II.. Column 1. The calibrations are performed with known quantities of Ar-41 that are prepared in the reacto Records of releases are maintained on strip-charts. A review of the strip charts for 1987. disclosed that the readings were barely above background level'.
The licensee's staff were in the process of calibrating both CAMS during the inspection. The stoff informed the inspector that they had discovered that the CAM's air flow volume measurements readings were a factor of four low due to an
,
e e- ,-,-.+e, . .r e.-,
- ,
.
,
.. . 7 -
\
undersized orifice in the CAM's magnehelic gauge. The licensee ;
made this determination.through conversations held with. vendors 1 that manufactured the CAM. It appeared that the-problem has existed sitice the CAM was first put into operation, some 15
'
years ago. The stack CAM air finw measurements were determined
'to be satisfactory. The licensee performed a preliminar .
review of the strip charts collecteri during previous peak reactor operations and determined that all prior releases .from the facility.were within 10 CFR 20, Appendix B, Table II, Column 1 limits. The staff'added that they were still evaluating the previous dat The RRF Director and Assistant. Director stated that.the CAM's air f1 w volume calibration'was conducted because' of a' question raised by the inspector during'a previous inspection perio The staff added that calibration procedures for the. CAM's will be revised to include the recommendatiens of Regulatory Guide (R.G.) 8.25, "Calibration and Error Limits of Air' Sampling Instruments for Total Volume of. Air Sampled."
Tne inspector noted.that the licensee's staffLstill had.not developed a method for quantifying the activity measured by the CAM's in microcuries per milliliters and total curies from th*
chart reading The above observations were brought to the' licensee's attention-during the exit meeting. The inspector emphasized the importance of assuring calibrati'n of instrumentation is performed in a manner that is consistent with tha Industry Standards such as what may be prescribed in R.G.'s and American National Standard Instructions (ANSI).
In the area examined, the licensee's performance appeared-to be improving and seemed capable of meeting its safety objective No violations or deviations were identifie . Information Notices
,
The. inspector verified that the licensee was receiving and evaluating Information Notices in a timely manne Licensee evaluations for Information Notices received between January l 1985 through June 1, 1988, were reviewed. The licensee's. evaluations were well documente In the area inspected, the licensee's performance appeared capable of I superior performance in accomplishment of their safety objectives'. No i violations or deviations were identifie . Emergeacy Plan Implementation The licensee's capabilities for responding to cergencies as specified in the approved Ercergency Plan dated February 1986,- e d for demonstrating
.- -
--- - -
, , - -, .- .
.
.
- -* 8 compliance with 10 CFR part 50.54(q) and 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E, were-examine Tha examination included a review of applicable training records,.
emergency plan implementing procedures, emergency-response ~ equipment, drill scenarios, drill critiques and discussions with the licensee's '
staf Also examined were the memoranda,of understanding maintained with offsite agencies such as the Fire. Department, Police Department,-Hospital and State of Oregon emergency response organization.-
The inspector.noted that the licensee had conducted two emergency exercises since the previous inspection and were in the process of participating in an exercise involving several off-site agencies. This exercise is tentatively scheduled for June 24, 198 The-exercise will be used to verify the licensee's communications capabilities with off-site ageacies as is required by the Emergency Plan. Tne inspector noted that none of the exercises performed to date had involved a medical emergency involving a simulated contaminated individua The Emergenc Plan requires that a scenario involving.a medical: emergency be performed periodically. This observation was brought to the licensee's attentio The licensee informed the inspector that they would plan to conduct an exercise involving a medical emergency within the next fiscal school yea The inspector noted that the required Emergency Plan annual reviews had been conducted by the RSC and ROC pursuant to paragraph 10.4 of the pla A examination disclosed that the' licensee's review had been thoroug The RSC and ROC were evaluating the comments raised in the review. The licensee suspects that it may be necessary to make some changes.to the plan in order to clarify responsibilities: and ambiguous statements contained in the current plan. The inspector informed the licensee--that changes snoulo be processed in accordance with 10 CFR 50.54(q)
requirement In the area inspected, the licensee's program appeared adequate to accomplish its safety objective No violations or deviations were identifie . Followup Items (Closed) Followup Items 85-01-02 and 85-01-05 related to the aoequacy of logs and records and Standard Operating Procedures are discussed in paragraph 2. The inspector concluded that the license.e's actions in these areas were satisfactory. This matter is close (Closed) Ihe status Information Notices IN 85-92, IN 86-22 and IN 87-22
~
are discussed in paragraphs 2 and 3. The inspector concluded that the licensee's actions were satisfactory. This matter is close (Closed) Licensee Report Bo-03-LO is related to a missed surveillance check-of the reactor. pool Jwater's conductivity during the period of March 3-22, 1988. A review of this item' disclosed that the licensee's corrective actions for preventing a recurrence was satisfactory. This-matter is close t
, me a -
<--+ n s
.. . . - . . . .. . . - - . . . . . . - - - . - . . . . . . - . . - .
, .
ws.e ,
, r ,
,
-
.
j
'
't '
[ s .. ' , !
M4 ' '
, : . :. -
-
-1
, g l- .,, . r 1 >
s
' '
g L ,
q
' '
' Exit-Interview ~
< $
t '
.
,, . ,
. , .I
'3-
. ' The inspector' met with the! licensee representatives' (denoted in paragrapti .
-
l 1) at.the conclusion'of the inspection on-June 3--1988.' The scope.and '
~
.
,
l
- findings of the : inspection .were, sumarized. The. inspector informed the >
-l
. licensee t. hat no v.iolations or' deviations ~were-identiffe i si
. \
-i
% .
.
-l
>I
- [t l s
A I
.
'
. :
l l
'
,
!
.
)
-l
.
l
,
<
%
m -