IR 05000160/1998201

Insp Rept 50-160/98-201 on 980420-21.No Violations Noted. Major Areas Inspected:Organization & Staffing,Emergency Preparedness Program Plan & Implementation Procedures & Emergency Alarms & Communications Sys

ML20247K407
Person / Time
Site:	Neely Research Reactor
Issue date:	05/07/1998
From:	NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned)
To:
Shared Package
ML20247K365	List: IR 05000160/1998201 ML20247K359
References
50-160-98-201, NUDOCS 9805220083
Download: ML20247K407 (8)

Text

.. ._

.

, U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION

.

l Docket No: 50-160 License No: R-97 Report No: 50-160/98-201 Licensee: Georgia Institute of Technology Facility: Georgia Institute of Technology Research Reactor (GTRR)

Location: 900 Atlantic Drive Atlanta, GA 30332 Dates: April 20-21,1998 Inspector: C. H. Bassett, Senior NPR Inspector Approved by: Seymour H. Weiss, Director .

i '

Non-Power Reactor and Decommissioning Project Directorate *

.

.

.

9805220083 PDR 980507 N ADOCK 05000160

.PDR g(f

.

_ _ _ _ _ _

.

.

%

.

i EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Georgia institute of Technology Report No: 50-160/98-201

.

The primary focus of this routine, announced inspection was the on-site review of the emergency preparedness program of this Class 111 non-power reactor including organization, facilities and equipment, procedures and training, offsite agency support, and drills and exercise ]

Organization and Staffing

'

• The licensee's organization is in compliance with the requirements specified in the Technical Specifications and Emergency Plan and the staffing level is acceptable for the current level of activitie , Changes to the Emergency Plan and implementing Procedures

. * No changes have been made to the Emergency Plan and implementing procedure Emergency Preparedness Program implementation / Exercises and Drills

• The most recent annual on-site emergency exercise was conducted in accordance with requirements outlined in the Emergency Pla * Licensee personnel designated as responders during the emergency exercise were i

'

_

cognizant of.their responsibilitie * Emergency response facilities, equipment, instrumentation, and supplies were maintained as require t\ :

. Offsite Support -

-* .The licensee maintained contact with an offsite agency through a Letter of Agreement and periodic communication confirmed that support would be provided by the facility in case of an emergenc ,

e ' Offsite agencies participated in simulated emergencies biennially as required by the

-

l Emergency Pla '-

Emergency Alarms and Communications Systems e Alarms and communication systems were being maintained as require Training

• The training provided by the licensee to emergency responders and offsite personnel was acceptable and complied with the requiremerits in the Emergency Pla Follow-up on Previous Open items i

e One Inspector Follow-up Item and an Exercise Weakness were close j

!

'

!

)

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ . _ - _ _ - _ _ - _ - _ _ - - _ - _ _ - _ - - _ - _ - _ _ _ _ -_ - _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _

!

i

.

l.'

f

'

REPORT DETAILS l

Summary of Plant Status This five megawatt thermal (5MWt), heavy water moderated and cooled research reactor-l was' shutdown on November 17,1995, in preparation for removing the fuel before the Olympic Games began in the summer of 1996. All reactor fuel was removed during the first two' months of 1996 and no new fuel has been received by the facility.' The reactor has remained shutdown and has not been in operation since November 1995. The licensee applied for a Possession Only License (POL) on August 7,1997, following a decision to decommission the reactor. The NRC issued Amendment Number No.12 to the facility license (leacility License No. R-97) on April 2,1998, removing authority from the license to

. operate the reactor while authorizing only its possessio . Organization and Staffing (40755)

a. Inspection Scope

.. The inspector reviewed the following regarding the licensee's organization and staffing to ensure that the requirements of technical specification (TS) Sections 5.1.a and 5.1.b were met:

• .the organizational structure, '

e management responsibilities, and

-

e. current staffing for safe operation of the GTRR facilit .

b. Observations and Findings Through discussions with licensee representatives, the inspector determined that management responsibilities and the organization at the facility had not changed F % since the previous NRC inspection of emergency preparedness in November 1996

'.(Inspection Report No. 50-160/96-05). The inspector determined that the Director

' ' "

of the Neely Nuclear Research Center (NNRC) retained overall responsibility for

^

management of the facility and emergency preparedness as specified in the T Tsough observation of operations and discussions with licensee pe,rsonnel, the inspector determined that the staffing at the facility was adequate to support the work and any emergencies that might develo *

c. Conclusions The licensee's organization is in compliance with the requirements specified in the Technical Specifications and Emergency Plan and the staffing level is acceptable for current activitie . Changes to the Emergency Plan and implementing Procedures (40755)

a. Inspection Scope The inspector reviewed the following to ensure that changes, if any, to the Emergency Plan and implementing procedures were made in accordance with 10

. CFR 50.54(q):

,

I

_ __ __ -_______-_ --_-__-____- - -_______ _ - -

r

.

.

.

. 2

.

L e the review, approval, and distribution of the Emergency Plan;

'

e the review, approval, and distribution of the implementing procedures; and e documentation of changes made to the Emergency Plan and implementing .

,

procedure t b. Observations'and Findings The inspector reviewed documentation and discussed the Emergency Plan and implementing procedures with licensee personnel. The last major update and l

-

revision to the Emergency Plan, Revision (Rev.) 3, was approved and submitted for

!

NRC review and approval on October 27,1994. Since then, no major revisions or i changes have been made. The inspector noted that changes have been made to the implementing procedures, but these have been minor in nature and have involved administrative issues such as personnel listings and telephone number changes. It

was also noted that the Emergency Plan and procedures had been distributed to the

'

staff members and other agencies as require , c. Conclusions

\

Based on interviews with licensee personnel and docume'ntation reviews, no

'

changes have been made to the Emergency Plan and implementing procedure . Also, the Emergency Plan and implementing procedures were maintained in

,

accordance with 10 CFR 50.54(q) and distributed in a timely manne ; 3. Emergency Preparedness Program implementation / Exercises and Drills (40755)

a. Inspection Scope -

. The inspector reviewed the' following to ensure that the Emergency Plan and A associated procedures were being implemented consistently with the TS and the

"

requirements specified in the Emergency Plan

[ e the performance of emergency response personnelin simulated emergency

• situations; e the condition of emergency response facilities, equipment, instrumentation, and supplies; and e -the documentation of recent drills and exercises, b. Observations and Findings The inspector reviewed the results of the most recent annual on-site emergency exercise conducted at the facility on December 11,1998. The inspec*or reviewed the scenario and a checklist of the time line of events used in the exercise. Also reviewed was a description of the emergency responders' actions as noted by the designated observers and a summary of the critique of the exercise by the participants and observers. The exercise was conducted in accordance with, and fulfilled the requirements stipulated in, the Emergency Plan. Key licensee emergency response personnel demonstrated that they could respond to emergencies as required.- Offsite response agency communication verifications were l

. completed as required by the Emergency Pla . .

'

! )

-_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ __-

.

'

.

'

,

!

. 3 s The inspector toured the licensee's facility and observed the facilities, equipment, instrumentation, and supplies that would be used for response to an emergency. It was noted that they were being maintained in a state of readiness as required by

., ' the Emergency Plan. Copies of the Emergency Plan and the implementing procedures were noted to be available in various locations as require c. Conclusions

'

The most recent annual on-site emergency exercise was conducted according to

,

'

requirements outlined in the Emergency Plan. Licensee personnel designated as responders to the " emergency" were cognizant of their responsibilities. Emergency response facilities, equipment, instrumentation, and supplies were maintained as

require . Offsite Support (40755)

a. inspection Scope

. The inspector reviewed the following to ensure that offsite support would be f, available to the facility as indicated in the Emergency Plan:

e ..the Letter of Agreement signed by an offsite. hospital; e, training provided to the offsite agencies; and e ~ coordination and communication with these agencie l

.

b. Observations and Findings The inspector reviewed the Letter of Agreement (LOA) signed by an offsite hospital

"

and noted that the letter indicated the hospital would support the facility in case of 1

. a problem. The LOA was noted to be current. The inspector, also noted that I i i training had been provided to offsite personnel as required, including.the Georgia i

,.

2 Tech Police Department and the Atlanta Fire Department. It was noted that the

"

~ training included onsite familiarization and classroom instructio During the most recent drill, offsite agencies had not participated directly because

'they had participated in last year's drill and are only required to participate biennially; however, various groups were contacted by telephone as required by j

-

procedure. (Actual offsite participation had been accomplished during the exercise j conducted on November 26,1996.) Participation of the offsite agencies was j c determined to be acceptable and communications were deemed satisfactor j c. Conclusions l

The licensee maintained contact with an offsite hospital through a Letter of i Agreement and periodic comrnunication confirmed that support would be provided

,

by the facility in case of an emergency. Offsite agencies participated in simulated l

emergencies biennially as required by the Emergency Pla i

.

- . _ . _ --.__--_--.__a

- _-_-. - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ________

.

.

. 4 5. Emergency Alarms and Communications Systems (40755)

a. Inspection Scope The inspector reviewed the following to ensure that emergency alarms were j operable and being maintained as required by TS 3.1 and Emergency Plan Sections  !

8.5 and 10.5.2: l l

e periodic functional tests of emergency alarms and communications systems; I e calibration of area radiation monitoring equipment; and a maintenance records of the alarms and equipmen b. Observations and Findings Through a review of the documentation of the calibration, maintenance, and/or pericdic testing of the emergency alarms, the inspector determined that the alarms functioned as required. The alarms were those associated with the Area Radiation Monitors (ARMS). The inspector also noted during a tour of the f acility that the

, cameras used for transmitting indications of facility status to the Georgia Tech ,

Police Department and reactor room status to the Emergency Command Center  !

(ECC) were operationa c. Conclusions Based on documentation and facility checks, alarms and communication systems .

- were being maintained as require j

!

6. Training (40755)

I a.' Inspection Scope  ;

A i The inspector reviewed the following to ensure that training was being completed l according to the requirements in Section 10.1 of the Emergency Plan: I e annual training given NNRC personnel;

• emergency responder training records; and .

• biennial training provided to the offsite agency personne b. ObseWations and Findings

Review of the records and documentation of the annual training given, showed that emergency response personnel were receiving the training outlined in Section 1 of the Emergency Plan. The training included emergency commanos, coordination, and control, classification of emergencies, and review of implementing procedure The recent on-site emergency exercise showed the effectiveness of the training. As noted above, training had also been provided to offsite personnel as required biennially, including training for the Georgia Tech Police Department and the Atlanta Fire Departmen . -

.

.

- _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _____ ____ ______ __ _____ _ __ - _ _ ____ _ __ _ _

Q

.

, 5 c. Conclusions

'

The training provided by the licensee to emergency responders and offsite personnel was acceptable and complied with the requirements in the Emergency Pla . Review of Inspector Follow-up Items (92701)

a. inspection Scope The inspector followed up on a previously identified exercise weakness and another inspector Follow-up items (IFI). The inspector reviewed the licensee's response, evaluation, and corrective actions, as needed, relative to the problems or issues noted, b. Observations and Findings 1) Inspector Follow-up Item 50-160/96-05-01 (Closed): Exercise Weakness -

Failure to declare the correct emergency classification in a timely manner. The licensee's response to this issue, dated February 13,1997, was that training in timely emergency classification would be completed on or before December 1, 1997. However, this commitment was contingent upon a decision by the President of the Institute to continue reactor operation. Training was provided in

. the areas of emergency command, coordination, and control, and classification of emergencies on November 6,1997. Training which covered the Emergency Plan and a review of implementing procedures was conducted on October 28 and 30,199 ) Inspector Follow-up Item 50-160/96-05-02 (Closed): Provide additional training including table-top drill for personnel designated as alternate Emergency Directo The licensee's response to this issue, dated February 13,1997, was that additional training would be completed on or before December.1,199 '

'

However, this commitment was contingent upon a decision by the President of

' '

the institute to continue reactor operation. In a supplementalletter dated March 14,1997, the licensee committed to this training before receiving new fuel for the reactor. Even though no' new fuel was ever received for the reactor, training was completed in October and November 1997 as noted abov c. Conclusions

,

IFI's 50-160/96-05-01 and 02 are close '

8. Exit Meeting Summary

The inspection scope and results were summarized on April 21,1998, with licensee

! representatives. The inspector discussed the findings for each area reviewed. The

! licensee did not identify any of the materials provided during the inspection as proprietar .

- _ _ _ - - _ - . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ . . _ _ . _ _ _ -____ _ _ . _ _ - _ _ _ _ . _ _ . . _ _ _ . . . - _ _ . . _ _ _ - - _ _ -_ _ _ __ _ _ _ . _ _ - _ .

-_ - _- _-_ - __-____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .

.

.

.

'  ;

i

, PARTIAL LIST OF PERSONS CONTACTED R. Ice, Manager, Office of Radiation Safety E. Jawdeh, Health Physicist P. Newby, Reactor Engineer J. Strydom, Senior Safety Engineering Assistant INSPECTION PROCEDURES USED

.

IP 40755 Class ill Non-Power Reactors ITEMS OPENED, CLOSED, AND DISCUSSED Opened None Closed I

50-160/96-05-01 IFl Exercise Weakness - Failure to declare the correct emergency classification in a timely manne /96-05-02 IFl Provide additional training including table top drill for personnel designated as alternate Emergency Directo LIST OF ACRONYMS USED ARM Area Radiation Monitor l-CFR Code of Federal Regulations ECC\ Emergency Command Center GTRR Georgia Institute of Technology Research Reactor i

IFl' Inspector Follow-up Item  :

'

LOA Letter of Agreement

, MWt Megawatt thermal

'NNRC Neely Nuclear Research Center . l

' N Number i NPR Non-Power Reactor NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission

'

PDR Public Document Room TS Technical Specifications

i

-

.

l

.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _