IR 05000225/1985003

Insp Rept 50-225/85-03 on 851008-09.No Unacceptable Conditions Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Licensee Action on Previous Insp Findings,Facility Operations,Maint & Surveillance & Emergency Procedures & Annual Exercise

ML20137L751
Person / Time
Site:	Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
Issue date:	11/21/1985
From:	Cook W, Mccabe E NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:
Shared Package
ML20137L704	List: IR 05000225/1985003 ML20137L701
References
50-225-85-03, 50-225-85-3, NUDOCS 8512030524
Download: ML20137L751 (4)

Text

_ _ _

.

.

.

.

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

REGION I

Report N /85-03 Docket N License N CX-22 Priority -- Category G Licensee: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Department of Nuclear Engineering and Science Troy, New York 12181 Facility: RPI Critical Experiments Facility Inspection At: Schenectady and Troy, New York Inspection Conducted: October 8-9, 1985 Inspector: W. A. Cook, Resident Inspector, Ginna Approved by: 1kO sil2s (tr

_E. McCabe, Chief date Reactor Projects Section 3B, DRP Inspection Summary: Inspection on October 8-9, 1985 (Report No.. 50-225/ 85-03)

Areas Inspected: Routine, unannounced inspection by a resident inspector (12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br />) of licensee action on previous inspection findings; facility operations, maintenance and surveillance; Emergency Procedures and Annual Exercise; trair.ing; and Nuclear Safety Review Boar Results: Of the seven areas inspected, no unacceptable conditions were identi-fie Issues discussed included: surveillance and calibration scheduling in paragraph 3.c; improvements in emergency equipment control and testing /

inspection in paragraph 4; and the development of requalification training guidance in paragraph ,R 2 g b24 h eda PD O

.

.

.

.

DETAILS 1. Persons Contacted Dr. D. R. Harris, Facility Director Dr. F. E. Wicks, Operations Supervisor Francisco J. Rodriquez-Vera, Teaching Assistant 2. Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings (Closed) Inspector Follow-up Item (83-02-02): This item involved documen-tation of Nuclear Safety Review Board (NSRB) approval of Operating Proce-dures. The inspector reviewed the current revision to the Operating Procedures, dated March 1985, and verified documentation of NSRB review and approva (Closed) Inspector Follow-up Item (84-03-01): This item involved the doc-umentation of the Nuclear Safety Review Board evaluation of the revised Manual of Experiments. The inspector discussed this item with licensee representatives and determined that a detailed review of the revised Manu-al of Experiments was not deemed necessary by the NSRB. No significant changes have been made to the experiments as a result of the issuance of IE Notice 83-66 Supplement 1, " Fatality at Argentine Nuclear Facility".

Amplification of existing safety precautions and the inclusion of a review of the Argentine event as background information for the core loading lab-oratory experiment were the only revision In addition, the experiments performed at the facility involve only one core configuration. No signif-icant modifications or core reconfigurations have been mada to the facili-ty in recent years. Therefore, experiment pro:edural changes have not been necessary and detailed NSRB reviews have not been warrante (Closed) Inspector Follow-up Item (84-03-02): This item involved the re-view of licensee measures to update system drawings to reflect actual plant conditions. The inspector reviewed the revised piping flow diagram, dated March 1985, and found no discrepancie . Operations Review A review of various operational elements was conducted as discussed belo Facility Tour and Operating Records Review Upon arrival, the inspector toured the critical facility with the Operations Supervisor and discussed system operations and experiments performed. Technical Specification required systems were identified, and their operation was explained and demonstrated for the inspector by the licensee. The inspector reviewed the facility operating log and start-up checklists and found no discrepancie _ _ - . ..

..

..

.

.,' ,

,.

3 Maintenance Review From December 1984 to October 1985 the following maintenance was performed:

--

Air Monitoring System-March 19, 1985, a capacitor was replaced to prevent spurious re-scal Linear Power Channel-April 16, 1985, the scram circuit for Lin-ear Power Channel No.1 (LP1) was rebuil The inspector discussed with the licensee the maintenance performed and verified adequate system retests were conducted. No deficiencies were note , Surveillance The inspector reviewed surveillance activities to verify Technical Specification requirements were satisfied and properly documente Semi-Annual Surveillance Checklists completed 1/30/84, 6/26/84, 1/3/85, and 8/13/85 and Annual Surveillance Checklists completed 1/30/84 and 1/3/85 were reviewed. No discrepancies were identified. However, the inspector noted that the licensee does not maintain a consolidated list of all surveillance and calibration requirements. The licensee is considering development of a complete list to make scheduling and reviewing more efficien . Emergency Procedures and Annual Drill Review The inspector reviewed the facility Emergency Response procedures, revised in May 1985, and concluded that the procedures appear to adequately ad-dress plausible facility emergencies. Although no documentation was available, the inspector determined that an emergency drill was conducted in April 1985. The inspector discussed the lack of documentation with the licensee and determined that a written summary of the drill would be made and that future drills would be formally recorde The inspector reviewed the status of emergency equipment and determined that fire extinguishers and emergency breathing apparatus were periodical-ly inspected by the campus Fire Department. The inspector determined that facility personnel were trained in emercency equipment use. In addition, the inspector determined that a new commercial fire detection system was recently installed at the Test Facilit The Test Facility Emergency Plan, revised December 1984, specifies that emergency equipment will be reviewed annually. Although periodic inspec-tion has been properly conducted by the campus Fire Department, the in-spector deterr:ined that the licensee does not maintain a list of all facility emei9ency equipment and their respective testing / inspection reluirements. In addition, the licensee does not conduct operability te; ting of the fire detection syste The inspector discussed this issue

.

.

.

.

,' 4

.

with the licensee and the licensee agreed to review the feasibility of functionally testing the fire detection system and to compile a list of emergency equipment at the facilit The inspector will review these items in a subsequent repor (85-03-01) Training The inspector discussed licensed operator requalification training with the licensee. Currently, three individuals hold an NRC licens From the inspector's review of operating logs and discussions with the licensee, it is apparent that two operators actively use their license on a routine basis. However, the third operator is more involved with test facility administrative concerns and has limited involvement with hands-on test reactor experiments and routine operations. This operator success-

. fully passed an NRC administered Operator Licensing Examination (reference NRC examination Report 50-225/85-02) on July 24, 1985. How-ever the licensee does not maintain a formal requalification program. In view of third operator's limited involvement in routine operations, development of a requalification program or equivalent maintenance of pro-ficiency guidance, as required by 10 CFR Part 55 paragraph 55.31(e)

pertaining to the active use of the license, and paragraph 55.33 pertain-ing to license renewal conditions, will be necessary in the futur The inspector will review this item in a subsequent repor (85-03-02) Nuclear Safety Review Board (NSRB)

The inspector reviewed the minutes of NSRB meetings held on April 4, 1984, July 23, 1984 and April 19, 1985. The inspector observed that routine facility activities were reviewed and that identified problems were appro-priately resolved. The inspector found no discrepancie . Exit Interview The inspector met with licensee representatives at the conclusion of the inspection on October 9, 1985. The inspector summarized the purpose and scope of the inspection and discussed the observations and conclusions.