. .

'

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIONOFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT

Region I

Report No. En-l u/7R-n1

Docket No. 50-134

License No. R-61 Priority Category G--

Licensee: Worcester Polytechnic Institute

Worcester, Massachusetts 01609

.

Facility Name: Nuclear Reactor Facility

Inspection at: Worcester, Massachusetts

Inspection conducted: December 18-1 , 197

Inspectors: / 2. dM ffR. Arc 61tzel, a tar In pector ate signed

0 bb A . I*

W.Raymond,ReactpfMnspector ' date signed

date signed

Approved by: h/[ (b _ _ _ / T 9

E. C. McCabe, Jr., Chief,# Reactor Projects pates 4gned'

Section No. 2, R0 & NS Branch

Insoection Summary:Inspection on December 18-19,1978 (Report No. 50-134/78-01)Areas Inspected: Routine, unannounced inspection of operations, including: surveillancetesting; followup on IEC 77-14; experiments; requalification training; review and audits;procedures; radiation control; and, organization, logs and records. A facility tour wasconducted. The inspection involved 24 hours onsite by two NRC inspectors.Results: Of the nine areas inspected no items of uoncompliance were identified in 7areas, one item was identified in each of the others (Infraction - Failure to approvea procedure, Paragraph 5; Deficiency - Failure to satisfy quorum requirement, Paragraph10).

7903139323

Region I Form 12(Rev. April 77)

. .

,

DETAILS

1. Persons Contacted

C. Bleakney III, TechnicianJ. Caola, Radiation Safety OfficerR. Goloskie, Chainnan, RHSCS. Laflanne, Student (RO)

*L. Wilbur, Facility Director

* denotes those present at the exit interview.

2. Organization, Logs and Records

Facility organization and staffing, including changes made tolicensed staff and observation of minimum staffing composition,were reviewed to verify conformance with the Technical Specificationand 10 CFR 50 requirements. Facility operating and maintenancelogs, including records of process parameters, were reviewed toverify operation in accordance with the Technical SpecificationLC0 and administrative requirements. Materials used during thisreview included the 1977 Annual Operating Report; strip chartrecords of Log N from December 1,1977 to December 13,1978 andLinear Power from December 7,1977 to May 9,1978; facilityprocedures on the conduct of maintenance, and the Reactor Operator'sLog Book from December 20, 1977 to December 19, 1978.

No inadequacies were identified and, except as noted below, theinspector had no further connents in this area.

a. Staff Chances

The following significant changes in facility staffing havebeen made or are anticipated:

(1) Mr. C. BleakneyEIII has been hired as a facility technicianand is undergoing licensed operator training.

(2) Professor Mayer (SR0) returned to the facility followinga prolonged absence.

No items of noncompliance were ~ identified.

. .

3

3. Requalification Training

The inspector reviewed the annual requalification examinations,including a sampling of the answers given, for three licensedoperators during CY 1978. Two licensed operators did not partici-pate in the requalification program due to graduation and theFacility Director stated that, due to absences of greater than fourmonths, they would not be allowed to resume licensed activities ifthey returned. Two other licensed operators (one senior) who hadreturned to the facility following absences of greater than fourmonths in CY 1978, were reexamined by the Facility Director, andrecertified by OLB, NRR following licensee written requests.During a review of the examinations referenced above, the inspectornoted that oral examination on the aspects of the emergency planwas documented. The inspector questioned the licensee concerningwhen periodic reading of facility procedures and applicable portionsof the regulations was accomplished. The licensee stated that thiswas perfonned annually prior to the examination and that a checklistwould be developed to document this reading.

This item is unresolved (134/78-01-01) pending implementation ofthe checklist.

4. Observation of Reactor Startup and Facility Tour

a. Startup

The inspectors witnessed a reactor startup performed on December19, 1978, including the completion of the startup checklist.The startup procedure included the surveillance requirementsof TS Section 12.1 to ensure that the two safety channels, thelog N channel, and the console annunciator system are operable.

No unacceptable conditions were identified.

b. Facility Tour

An inspection tour of the facility was conducted with thereactor at full power (10 Kw) to perform a radiation surveyand confirm posting in accordance with 10 CFR 20. The surveywas conducted in the Reactor Room with an NRC instrument(Eberline E-120, Serial #1268) and radiation fields weremeasured in the following areas: pool surface, pool rail,bridge, ion exchanger column, beam tube and thermal column.A neutron survey was also perfonned using a licensee instrument(Snoopy, NPl Detector). A maximum reading of 0.6mr/hr wasrecorded at the end of the thermal column during 10 Kw oper-ation.

No unacceptable conditions were identified.

.

4

5. Procedures

The inspector reviewed facility procedures on a sampling basis toensure that the latest revisions were available, technicallyadequate, reviewed and approved as required.

Reactor Facility procedures were checked against the RadiationSafety Officer's copies of procedures and were all the samerevision. The inspectors observed performance of a Reactor Start-up (Paragraph 4) in accordance with the approved procedure and toverify that the procedure accomplished the intended function.

The inspector requested that a licensee representative walkthrough a procedure to regenerate the pool water demineralizerresin. The procedure used was undated and was not approved bythe RHSC. Although the procedure would accomplish the intendedfunction (Regeneration of resin) important aspects were not addressed,such as release of potentially radioactive liquid to the citysewers. The inspector noted that resins had been regeneratedduring January and September of 1977 and January 1978 and that theresin was replaced during August 1978. Results of licensee'ssample analysis during these periods showed no detectable radio-activity in the liquid sample taken for the release.

Failure of the RHSC to approve this maintenance procedure is anitem of noncompliance (134/78-01-02).

6. Experiments

Experiments conducted since the last inspection in this area wereclassroom excercises of routine nature and power level calibrations(flux measurements). The inspector reviewed the Reactor Log fromNovember 28, 1977 to December 12, 1978 to determine the extent ofexperimentation, and verify that materials, time irradiated,reactor power level, and reactivity worths (regulating rod motion,moderator worth experiments only) were recorded. Typical experimentsincluded flux plots, reactor physics, neutron radiography (beamport), and sample activation (vitamins, Au foils, aspirins, Cumetal, lead, various salts, pottery, polyethelene). The inspectorasked to see the RHSC approvals of these routine experiments. Thelicensee stated that these items had been approved by the RHSC,however, documentation was not available in the meeting minutes.The inspector noted that routine experiment approval had beenplaced on the agenda for the 1978 RHSC meetings.

This item is unresolved (134/78-01-03) pending formal RHSC reviewand documentation of routine experiment approvals.

5

7. Surveillance

The inspector interviewed licensee personnel and reviewed facilityprocedures, records and chart recordings to verify that surveillancetesting had been completed in accordance with Technical Specificationrequirements. Surveillance procedures were reviewed for technicaladequacy and to assure that the procedures reflect as-built conditions.The review included parameters identified in the Technical Specifi-cation as Limiting Conditions for Operation which do not have anestablished surveillance frequency. Surveillance testing associatedwith the following Technical Specification items was reviewed:

TS 4.1, Reactor pool water level and temperature.--

TS 4.2, Reactor pool water chemistry and activity.--

TS 5.1.1, Reactor geometry.--

TS 5.2, Core excess reactivity.--

TS 5.4, Neutron source and interlocks.--

-- TS 6.E, Ooerable nuclear instrument channels.,

TS 6.8, Rod insertion times.--

TS 7.1, Operable area radiation monitors.--

TS 7.2, Operable portable survey instruments.--

TS 10.1, Staffing during reactor operation.--

TS 12.1, Pre-operational checks.--

TS 12.2, Semi-annual reactor inspections.--

-- TS Table 1, Safety System Functions.

Materials used during this review included the following:

-- Excess Reactivity Measurement Procedure, RHSC, March,1978.

Reactor Checkout and Operation, RHSC, June,1977.--

6

Calibration of Console Instrumentation by Foil Activation,--

January, 1976.

Power Level Calibration Procedure, RHSC, January,1976.--

pH Meter Calibration Procedure, RHSC, January,1976.--

Pool Water Conductivity Meter and Probe Calibration Check,--

RHSC, October,1976.

Fuel Unloading Procedure, RHSC, January, 1976.--

Fuel Reloading to Standard Configuration, RHSC, January, 1976.--

Rod Drop Measurement Procedure, RHSC, January, 1976.--

Form 2, excess reactivity, October 12, 1978 and April 24, 1978.--

Fonn 3, power level, April 24, 1978, July 17, 1978, and October--

12, 1978.

Reactor Facility Radiation Survey Sheets, October 12, 1978.--

Form 4, pH instrument calibration,* April 24, 1978 and October--

12, 1978.

Form 10, annual inspection report, October 12, 1978.--

Form 15, material status report, July 17, 1978 and October 9,--

1978.

--- Form 6, reactor facility inspection, January 30,1978 and

July 17,1978.

Form 13, fuel inventory, July 17, 1978.--

-- Reactor Startup Checklist for 1978.

Reactor Operator's Log Book for the period of December 20, 1977--

to December 19, 1978.

No items of noncompliance were identified.

.

.

7

8. Radiation Controls

The inspector interviewed licensee personnel and reviewed facilitylogs and records to ascertain whether the licensee's radiationprotection and contamination control program were .in conformationwith regulatory requirements. The following areas were inspected.

Radiation control procedures were reviewed for technical--

adequacy.

Posting and labeling in accordance with 10 CFR 20.--

Restricted are a marking, including designation of radiation--

areas, high radiation areas, and radioactive material workareas.

General access control.--

Contamination control, including use of protective clothing--

and exit monitoring.

Use of personal monitoring devices.--

.

-- Instructions provided to non-licensed personnel on healthprotection associated with radiation.

Comparison of inspector radiation surveys with recent licensee--

surveys.

Radiation dosimetry and survey instrument calibration programs.--

Personnel exposure.--

Practices for neutron exposure monitoring.--

a. References

The following procedures, records and instruments were inspectedfor this review.-- Safety Rules for Operation in the Reactor Laboratory,

RHSC, March, 1978.

8

-- Air Sampling Procedure, RHSC, February,1978.

Wipe Test Procedure, RHSC, January, 1978.--

Portable Monitoring Instrument Calibration Procedure,--

RHSC, January, 1977.

Precedure for Accepting Delivery of Commerically Prepared--

Isotopes, RHSC, January, 1978.

RSO Weekly Reactor Facility Inspection, RHSC, January,--

1978. -

Radiation Survey Sheets for May,1978.--

Farm 1, Area Monitor and Pool Level Monitor, January,--

1978 April,1978, July,1978, and October,1978.

Form 14, RSO Quarterly Report, April,1978, July,1978,--

and October, 1978.

Form 5, Survey Instrument Calibration Data, January,--

1978, February, 1978 April, 1978, July, 1978, October,1978, November,1978, and associated Certificates ofCalibration by Health Physics Association, Ltd.

Form 7, Campus Wipe Test, January,1978, and July,1978.--

-- Form 8, Sealed Soyrce Wipe Tests, January,1978, July,1978, and PuBe n Source Check, January, 1978.

Form 9, Activities and Releases, January,1978, and July,--

1978.

-- Form 12, Evacuation Drills, April,1978, and July,1978.

Visitor Exposure Records from December 1,1977 to Decem---

ber 19,1978.

-- Radiation Exposure Record File from January,1978 toDecember,1978, including contractor reports of monthlyfilm badge processing.

Cutie Pie Survey Instrument (5I), SN 1290.--

..

9

Cutie Pie SI, SN 767.--

Victoreen Radtector III SI, SN 623.--

Nuclear Chicago SI, WPI 70753.--

Tracerlab Snoopy Neutron Monitor SI, SN 5097.--

Victoreen Minirad SI, SN 385.--

Within the scope of the above, no items of noncompliance wereidentified and, except as noted below, the inspector had nofurther comments in this area.

b. Neutron Monitoring Practices

Recent concerns identified in the nuclear industry in regardto adequacy of relying solely on NTA film for personnel neutronmonitoring were discussed with the licensee. The inspectornoted, through discussions with licensee personnel and areview of film badge exposure reports, that NTA film is usedto provide personal neutron dose monitoring at the facility.The licensee stated, however, that no significant neutrondoserates have been measured with the reactor operating atfull power during previous radiation surveys. The inspectorsconfirmed this conclusion through a survey conducted at thefacility on December 19, 1978 usinsurvey instrument (Snoopy-SN 5097)g the licensee's portableFurther, in that the.

facility is almost exclusively used as a training aid, with noappreciable research work planned or in progress, the potentialfor personnel neutron exposures grLater than those measuredfrom the surveys appears neglegible.

The inspector had no further comments on this item.

c. Personnel Pocket Dosimeters

The inspector noted during this review that no administrativeprocedures are established governing the calibration of pocketdosimeters. Additionally, no formal program exists to conductdosimeter calibrations other than through a student lab assign-ment completed once or twice per year (contingent upon courseoffering). During the student lab. all Bocket dosimeters (atotal cf 43) are calibrated against a Co 0 source having ao

.

.

10

known (calibrated) source strength. The inspector reviewedthis item for compliance with 10 CFR 20, Sections 20.101,20.201, 20.202, 20.401, and 20.403, and Regulatory Guide 8.4,Direct Reading and Indirect Reading Pocket Dosimeters, February26, 1973. Regulatory Guide 8.4 provides guidance on acceptablepractices regarding the selection, use, and maintenance ofpocket dosimeters.

Eleven individuals, from both the facility staff and thestudent body, have permanently assigned film badges. Forthese individuals, the use of pocket dosimeters serves asa backup method for personnel monitoring. For all otherindividuals who enter the facility, the pocket dosimeterprovides the primary method for monitoring personnel exposure.Based on a review of the Visitor exposure record and theRadiation Exposure Record Fiie for 1978, the inspector -noted that no exposures attributable to work conducted atthe reactor facility approached the limits established by10 CFR 20.101.

The need for additional controls and/or administrative require-ments should future facility operation lead to personnelexposures significantly greater than that experienced to datewere discussed with the licensee.

This area will be reexamined after licensee evaluation.

9. IE Circular 77-14, Separation of Contaminated Water Systems

The inspectors determined that the licensee had received thiscircular dealing with the separation of the reactor water frompotable water systems and had reviewed the circular for applica-bili +f. Although the reactor water does not contain contaminatedwater as demonstrated by licensee and independent analysis, theinterconnection between these systems contains a vacuum breakerabove pool water level preventir.g siphoning of pool water intoportable water systems.

No unacceptable conditions were identified.

10. Review and Audits

Facility review and audit functions were reviewed to ascertaincompliance with Technical Specification requirements. Exceptas noted below, no inadequacies were identified in this area.

.

11

a. The inspector reviewed minutes of meetings held by the Radi-ation Health, and Safeguards Committee on the following dates:

January 30, 1978.

February 10, 1978

April 27,1978

July 17, 1978

October 12, 1978

Meeting frequently and quorum were reviewed to determineconsistency with RHSC Procedural Rules, dated January 23,1976.

The RHSC Procedural Rules require a quorum of four members forthe RHSC. Members are appointed by the Administration. Theinspector reviewed the list of 1978-1979 Standing Committeesand noted the following appointed members for the RHSC:Mssrs. V. Bluemel, T. Crusberg, R. Goloskie (Chairman), R.Sisson (Secretary), J. Caola, G. Pierce, L. Wilbur (ex officio),and J. Mayer.

For the July 17, 1978 meeting, only three members were presentplus Dean R. Bolz (Dean of Faculty). The inspector noted thatalthough Dean Bolz may appoint committee members, he was not anRHSC member, and therefore, the quorum requirements were notsatisfieu.

This is an item of noncompliance (134/78-01-04).

b. Technical Specification 9.2 requires the RHSC to conduct, atleast quarterly, audits of operations, equipment performance,records, and procedures.

Audits take the form of periodic reports of required tests andresults made by the Facility Director to the RHSC. Thesereports are reviewed at RHSC meetings and supplemented bysemi-annual tours and inspections, including log reviews, madeby the Committee.

The inspector reviewed the results of RHSC Inspections conductedon January 30, 1978 and July 17, 1978.

No unacceptable conditions were identified.

*

.

12

c. The inspector noted that no design changes had been effectedat the facility. fio unacceptable conditions were identified.

11. Unresolved Item

An item about which more information is required to determineacceptability is considered unresolved. Paragraphs 3 and 6 containunresolved items.

.

12. Exit Interview

The inspector held a meeting with Professor Wilbur at the conclusionof the inspection to discuss the inspection scope and findings.The items of noncompliance and unresolved items were identified.