IR 05000225/1980001
| ML19309F674 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute |
| Issue date: | 03/06/1980 |
| From: | Bores R, Terc N NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19309F669 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-225-80-01, 50-225-80-1, NUDOCS 8004300328 | |
| Download: ML19309F674 (9) | |
Text
8004300 tg '2;g U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTI0ff AND ENFORCEMENT Region I Report No. 50-225/80-01 Docket No. 50-225 License No. CX-22 Priority Category G
--
Licensee:
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Department of Engineering and Science Troy, New York 12181 Facility Name:
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Critical Facility Inspection at:
Schenectady and Troy, New York Inspection conducted:
January 15-17, 1980 Inspector :
ga -W-fg N. M. Te64, R&diation Specialist date signed date signed date signed Approved by:
6 3 -#4 - F#
~ R. J. Bofes, C'hief, Environmental and date signed Special Projects Section, FF&MS Branch Inspection Summary
-
.
Inspection on January 15-17,1980 (Report No. 50-225/80-01)
Areas Inspected: Routine inspection of the environmental protection, emergency planning, and radiation control programs including: under environmental pro-tection; airborne effluents, liquid effluents, effluent release data, solid waste, and environmental monitoring:
under emergency planning; emergency plan verification, outside agency coordination, training and drills, emergency equip-ment, and fire protection; and under radiation control; organization, posting and labeling, personnel monitoring, instrument calibration, and radiation contami-nation surveys. The inspection involved 17 inspector-hours on site by one regionally based NRC inspector.
Results: Of the 14 areas inspected, one item of noncompliance was identified in the area of radiation control (Deficiency - failure to maintain records -
Detail 6.d).
Region I Form 12 (Rev. April 77)
.
---
m'
.
.
,
.
.
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Principal Licensee Employees
- R. T. Lahey, Jr., Chairman, Department of Nuclear Engineering and Science
- D. R. Harris, Facility Director
- R. M. Ryan, Director of Radiation and Nuclear Safety
- P. R. Nelson, Reactor Supervisor F. J. Mastrianni, Radiation and Nuclear Safety Technician Other Personnel R. Marshall, Fire Chief, Schenectady Fire Department S. Kwiatkowsky, Lt., General Electric Security J
L. B. Czech, Bureau of Radiological Health, State of New York, Department of Health W. Madden, Administrator, Ellis Hospital J. Scott, Head Nurse of Emergency Services, Ellis Hospital
- denotes those present at the exit interview.
2.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings (Closed) Noncompliance (78-03-01) " Failure to hold an emergency drill during 1977." The inspector verified that the corrective action to prevent this occurrence, according to licensee's letter dated April
.
24, 1978 had been taken.
The item " Emergency Plan Drill" was incorpor-
'
ated on the Annual Maintenance Checklist to assure that emergency drills are conducted on an annual basis.
3.
General
,
This inspection consisted of a review of the licensee's Environmental Protection, Emergency Planning, and Radiation Control Programs.
Within these areas, the inspection consisted of selective examinations of procedures and representative records, interviews with personnel, j
and observations by the inspector.
The inspector, in the company of a licensee representative, conducted a tour of the facility.
Items such as housekeeping, fire protection, and maintenance were observed. Within the scope of this tour, no problem areas were identifie. - _
.
.
.
.
4.
Environmental Protection The inspector reviewed the licensee's effluent monitoring and environmental protection in the following areas.
a.
Airborne Effluents The inspector noted that the only airborne effluent release path to the environment from the reactor room was natural circulation through the facility stack.
The stack vent is filtered. The inspector noted that the inlet line to the continuous air monitor located in the control room apparently had been designed to draw air upstream of the absolute filter installed in the exhaust duct.
Presently, reactor room airborne levels are sampled through a disconnected exhaust duct elbow on one side of the building, at a point where the wall meets the SNM vault. By moving the pipe-elbow-connection, the air sample line inlet can be (at least) partially blocked.
The inspector questioned the adequacy of this sampling configuration and how well air sampled through this system represented the average airborne radioactivity levels in the reactor room.
The licensee stated that he will evaluate the reactor room airborne sampling system.
The inspector stated that this item would be considered unresolved pending completion of this evaluation and corrective action, if any, as required. (80-01-01)
b.
Liquid Effluents
The inspector reviewed licensee's liquid effluent release data for 1978 and noted that no release had been made since 1977.
The inspector
'
noted that release-path valve (#10) was locked shut.
The inspector had no further questions in this area. No items of noncompliance were identified.
c.
Other Methods of Releases The inspector checked the facility for unmonitored/ unauthorized discharge paths and observed no instances in which discharge paths were not properly monitored nor where releases of radioactivity were unauthorized.
The inspector had no further questions in this area.
,
i
_
_
_ ____
___
~
.
,
d.
Solid Waste The inspector noted that no solid radioactive waste shipments were made during 1978 and 1979, since the previous inspection. The inspector had no further questions in this area.
e.
Environmental Monitoring The licensee's environmental monitoring program presently consists of direct integrated measurements at six locations around the critical facility.
Radiation measurements were made using themoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs). Each TLD contained three lithium-fluoride chips, one Harshaw 100, a 600 and a 700.
TLDs were read annually in March and the results interpreted by the Director of Radiation and Nuclear Safety.
The inspector reviewed the environmental TLD monitoring period from March 1978 to March 1979 and found that the only record available was one page of a bound log 1isting seven environmental TLD stations.
Results of TLD readings were given in nanocoulombs for each Harshaw lithium-fluoride extrusion-type chip.
However, no information was recorded as to the combined total beta-gamma and neutron doses.
The inspector discussed with the licensee the importance of having appropriate units in the records, and the licensee stated that he would take immediate action to correct TLD records.
The inspector stated that these actions would be reviewed during a subsequent NRC inspection (80-01-02).
5.
Emergency Planning The inspector reviewed the licensee's emergency planning in the following areas.
a.
Verification of Emergency Planning and Procedures The licensee's Emergency Plan includes emergency procedures for power failure, fire, bomb threat, civil disorder, water leaks, human injury, and radiological emergencies.
The inspector discussed emergency planning, including methods of handling a postulated incident, with licensee personnel. The discussions indicated that persons employed at the facility could satisfactorily recognize an emergency and know what to do upon hearing an emergency alam.
These discussions also indicated that a functional method was available for contacting the people necessary to combat an emergency.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
l
..
.
__
-
._ -- - _ __.
'
.
.
b.
Supporting Agencies The inspector contacted the various emergency support agencies to determine the coordination between them and the licensee, and whether these agencies were aware of their responsibilities in the event of an emergency.
The inspector contacted the Schenectady Fire Department and was informed by the Fire Chief, that there had been little direct contact with the RPI Critical Facility in the last four to five years.
He further stated that it would be desirable for him and other members of the Fire Department, to tour the Critical Facility in order to familiar-ize themselves with the site.
The inspector contacted Ellis Hospital's Emergency Facilities and talked with the Head Nurse of Emergency Services who informed him tha't she personally had no knowledge of any agreement between RPI and Ellis Hospital, but that they would react to any radiological casualty.
The inspector then spoke with the Executive Director of Medical Affairs, who stated that he was not familiar with any agreement with RPI.
When asked whether the agreement letter signed by the Assistant to Chief Executive Officer at Ellis Hospital, dated July 7,1976, would be still in effect, he stated that if the letter existed, it was.
'
The inspector spoke with Mr. L. B. Czech, from the Bureau of Radiological Health, State of New York, Department of Health, who stated that he was aware of an agreement to support Rensselaer Critical Facility and that based on the maximum credible hazard postulated their relationship with RPI was considered satisfactory.
The inspector talked with a GE Security representative, and determined that he was familiar with his responsibility during emergencies.
The inspector discussed the above contacts and responses with the licensee. The licensee stated that more frequent contacts would be made with support agencies to assure adequate coordination and familiar-ization in the event of an emergency.
The inspector stated that this area would be re-examined during a subsequent inspection (80-01-03).
No items of noncompliance were identified at this tim _
.-
.
_ _ _ _ -
.
.
.
c.
Monitoring Systems / Alarms / Emergency Equipment The inspector examined the area radiation monitoring system and noted that the monitors were installed, calibrated, and checked as required by the licensee's Technical Specifications.
The inspector examined the licensee's emergency equipment including self-contained breathing apparatus, portable air particulate samplers, and radiation survey instruments.
The inspector noted this equipment was available and maintained as required by the licensee's emergency procedures.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
d.
Training The inspector reviewed training records in the emergency planning area. The inspector noted that students at the facility are required to read the emergency procedures.
This is documented in a form which includes date, name and signature of all members of the RPI Critical Facility staff and participants in reactor experiments. The list contained twenty-six names from April 10, 1979 to July 26, 1979.
The inspector noted that the licensee had conducted an emergency drill in March 1979. A power excursion was assumed and the emergency procedures for general emergency and radiation emergency were implemented.
The inspector discussed the drill wf *h the Critical Facility Supervisor, who highlighted improvcw possibilities in the areas of drill scenario, participaticr., and evaluation. The e
inspector had no further questions in this area at this time.
6.
Radiation Control The inspector reviewed the licensee's radiation control program in the following areas:
a.
Organization
,
(
The radiation control program at the Critical Facility is admini-stered by the RPI Office of Nuclear and Radiation Safety and the Critical Facility Supervisor.
The Office of Nuclear and Radiation Safety performs radiation and contamination surveys, maintains radiation exposure records, and performs TLD readouts.
The Critical Facility Supervisor is responsible for instrument calibra-tions and effluent analyses.
l
.
,
,
b.
Posting, Labeling and Access Control The inspector noted that posting of notices to workers was consistent with requirements of 10 CFR 19.
The entrance to the reactor building was controlled.
The inspector also noted that the restricted area within the facility exhibited adequate posting, as per 10 CFR 20.
c.
Training The inspector held discussions with licensee personnel and reviewed available documentation of training programs and records of personnel training to verify that all personnel working around radiation had been instructed in the health protection problems associated with radiation and the radiation safety procedures to be observed while working at the licensee's facility.
-
The inspector noted that available documentation of personnel training did not specifically address 10 CFR 19.12 training requirements.
Documentation in this area consisted of a form signed by all Rensselaer Critical Facility staff and participants in reactor experiments, indicating that they had reviewed the Hazards Report, Operating Proce-dures, and Technical Specifications. The director of RPI Critical Facility indicated that students received the training prescribed by 10 CFR 19.12 during their first regular class, as part of the academic training, but this aspect was not specifically documented in the form of lesson plans. The licensee stated that a statement would be incor-porated into the present training documentation form, making direct reference to 10 CFR 19.12 requirements.
No items of noncompliance were identified in this area.
d.
Personnel Monitorina The inspector reviewed the personnel dosimetry records for the Critical Facility for 1978 and 1979.
The licensee is using TLDs which are read in-house.
Each TLD consists of three lithium fluoride chips (Harshaw 100,600,700) which enables detection and measurement of neutron and gama radiations. The chips are read and results are entered on TLD rrord cards. Data is forwarded to computer data center where it is processed and printed.
The inspector identified the following discrepancies and deficiencies in the personnel dosimetry records of RPI Critical Facility:
.-
.-_
.
..-
-
-_
- _ _.
- _.
.
.-.
.
-
.
.
i
-
'
,
)
8.
.
(1) The TLD record card for some individuals did not contain Jan l
exposure information.
(No other personnel dosimetry record wasavailable).
(2) Many TLD record cards were incomplete (i.e. exposure period was undefined, or no conversion of data to radiation exposure
,
unitsetc.).
'
(3) Most TLD records did not contain all information as required by Form NRC-5.
(4) Doses entered on some TLD record cards were for periods exceeding one calendar quarter as defined by 10 CFR 20.3(4).
'
The inspector stated that 10 CFR 20.401.a requires, in part, that personnel monitoring records are kept on Form NRC-5, or on clear and legible records containing all the information required by Form NRC-5, that doses entered on the forms or records shall be for periods not exceeding one calendar quarter; and that each licensee shall maintain records in units of rem.
The inspector stated that the failure to maintain records in
'
accordance with 10 CFR 20.401.a was an item of noncompliance.
(80-01-04)
'
e.
Instrument Calibration Ths inspector reviewed the instrument calibration records for 1978 and 1979 and noted the radiation survey instruments were calibrated on an annual basis. The inspector noted that area radiation monitors were calibrated semi-annually, alarm set points checked monthly, and checked for operation daily during periods of reactor operation as required by the licensee's Techni-cal Specifications.
f.
Radiation and Contamination Surveys The inspector reviewed the results of radiation and contamination surveys for 1978 and 1979.
The inspector noted that the Critical Facility was surveyed seven times during 1978 and nine times during 1979.
No items of noncompliance were identified in this area.
.
j, F
/
-.,
-, -
.,
-, -
.
.
.
7.
Fire Protection a.
Facility Tour The inspector, while conducting a tour of the facility, observed fire extinguishers at various locations throughout the facility.
Exits were marked and clear of obstructions. Within the scope of this tour no problem areas were identified.
b.
Fire Fighting The inspector determined that fire fighting capability would be provided by the Schenectady Fire Department.
The inspector held discussions with licensee personnel in the area of fire protection.
These discussions indicated that licensee personnel could safely evacuate the facility and cooperate and assist the public fire department.
The inspector identified no items of noncompliance in this area.
8.
Exit Interview The inspector met with the licensee representatives (denoted in Para-graph 1) at the conclusion of the inspection on January 17, 1980. The inspector summarized the purpose and the scope of the inspection and the inspection findings including the item of noncompliance.
The licensee acknowledged the findings and stated that corrective actions would be initiated to correct the item of noncompliance.
l l
l l