IR 05000225/1989001
| ML20247B261 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute |
| Issue date: | 07/13/1989 |
| From: | Amato C, Lazarus W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20247B236 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-225-89-01, 50-225-89-1, NUDOCS 8907240081 | |
| Download: ML20247B261 (7) | |
Text
.
l
.
4.
.
l J
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission j
Region I
{
Report No.
50-225/89-01 i
Docket No.
50-225 l
License No.
CX-22 Licensee:
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute NES 1-9 Troy, New York 12180-3590 j
Facility Name:
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Riiactor critical Facility Inspection at: Schenectady and Troy, New York Inspection Conducted: May 18-19, 1989
)
Inspeetor:
O 40. 42 -p u [
I d / 2, /'/ F 7
,
c. G. Amato', Emergency Preparedness
/7 (/date'
l
,
,
Specialist, EPS, FRSSB, DRSS
'
Approved By:
-c 4 /u e
J [9 l
M.
yazargyl, Chief, Emergency date Pre fedness Section, FRSSB, DRSS Inspection Summary:
Inspection on May 18 to 19, 1989 (Inspection Report No, 50-225/89-01).
Areas Inspected:
Routine, announced, safety inspection of the licensee's emergency preparedness program.
Results: No violations were identified.
8907240081 890719 PDR ADOCK 05000225 O
_ -_-_ _
.,
.
..
.
l
i l
l DETAILS l
i 1.0 Persons Contacted
The following Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI)- faculty and Administrative staff members, and Schenectady City government officials were contacted.
P. Angelo, Supervisor, Reactor Critical Facility, RPI
- H. Becker, Associate Dean, School of Engineering, RPI R. Block, Head, Department of Nuclear Engineering and i
Engineering Physics, RPI j
- J. Buttridge, Director, Risk Management, RPI
'
C. Derwig, Assistant Chief, Schenectady Fire Department
- B. Drobnicki, Director,. Department of Public Safety, RPI
- D. Harris, Director, Reactor Critical Facility, and Associate Professor of Nuclear Engineering and Engineering Physics, RPI
- G. Judd, Vice Provost for Academ c Affairs, RPI
- J. Kirchner, Safety Manager, RPI R. Nebolini, Lieutenant, Schenectady Fire Department, Hose 4 J. McPartlon, Vice President, Mohawk Ambulance-
- R. Ryan, Director, Office of Radiation and Nuclear Safety, RPI K. Swart Operations Manager, Mohawk Ambulance A. Terryberry, Captain,' Schenectady Police Department f
- Denotes those present at the exit meeting.
The inspector also observed the actions of, and interviewed other Licensee personnel.
2.0 Licensee Action on Previously Identified Items The following items were identified during previous inspections.
Based upon observations, review of 3rocedures and discussions with licensee personnel by the inspector, tie following unresolved items are closed.
Procedur)es(50-225/88-03-01)
(CLOSED Unresolved: The Licensee's-Emergency Plan and
-
did not contain a dated or complete emergency call out list.
The NRC Headquarters Operations Officer's phone number was not listed. The licensee's revised Plan will include a complete and dated emergency call out list and the NRC emergency notification numbers.
(CLOSED 50-225/88-03-02) Unresolved:
A current, signed agreement with the Ell)s(Hospital did not exist.
i An agreement with the Ellis Hospital has been executed providing for the treatment of injured and contaminated personnel.
____
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.
. -.
<
.
-*
..
,
,
e
,
I
!
(OPEN) (50-225/88-03-03) Unmsolved: 'Ihem was no da'-1tation supporting emergency msponse training for students. 'Ihe licensee stated such training is given but an atterdance list is not taken nor are the briefing notes maintained.
(CIOSED) (50-225/88-03-04) Unresolved: 'Ibe required annual review of the Plan was not done by the Reactor Critical Facility (RCF) Supervisor nor was documentation available showing the RPI Nuclear Safety Review Board (NSRB)
had per Technical Specifications reviewed the Plan or changes to it. 'Ihe Plan was under review at the time of the inspection and the NSRB has met l
and reviewed RCF rafety activities.
l 3.0 Emergency Response Organization (ERO)
The RCP ERO description including assigned emergency functions was reviewed to determine if they were in compliance with 10 CFR 50.47(b)(1) and (de 2.6
.
b) (2),
and consistent with the guidance of Section 3 of USNRC Regulatory Gui I
(Emergency Planning for Research Reactors) and American Natiotal Standard j
Institute (ANSI) Standard 15.16 (Standard for Emergency Planning for
'
Research Reactors).
'Ihe normal operating staff and the ERO staff am the same. 'Ihere are two staff members: the RCF Director; and the RCF Supervisor. At the time of l
this inspection four additional individuals had been trained as reactor i
operators ard were awaiting an NRC license examination. 'Ihe addition of
these individuals to the ERO staff will provide additional staff depth.
,
Emergency response functions for each ERO staff nember are defined and i
assigned.
!
Based on the above, this part of the licensee's emergency preparedness
{
program is acceptable.
4.0 off Site Support Agreement with hospitals and ambulances were reviewed to determine if the licensee is in compliance with 10 CPR 50.47(b)(12) and in conformance with
the guidance of Regulatory Guide 2.6 Sections 4.5.3 and 4.5.4, and ANSI 3.8.3.
An agreement was signed February 21, 1989 with the Ellis Hospital to treat injured / contaminated individuals. 'Ihis agmement was r-ey since one was nol in force (refer to Section 5.2 of !HC Region I inspection report j
50-225/88-03).
Agmement(s) for ambulance service to transport injured contaminated individuals are not needed. If an ambulance were needed, the RPI Public i
'
Safety Department's (PSD) dispatcher would contact one of the amh11ance companies serving the area. Managers of an ambulance service stated an l
l
- __ _ ___- ___- _
- _ - _.
- _ _
.'
-
.
,
orientation tour of the RCF would be highly desirable since ambulance crews would enter the facility and place the injured on a stretcher. The licensee has committed to arrange orientation tours for ambulance crews.
Schenectady Police Officers have visited the facility but Fire Officers have not done so. Senior Schenectady Fire and Police Officers are aware of the facility and its lccation. Fire officers also stated that'
an orientation tour would be highly des le.
During the telephone conversation of July 5,1989, the licensee stated that orientation tours for firemen had been conducted.
Based on the above review, this portion of the licensee's Emergency Plan is acceptable.
5.0 Maintainirn Emergency Preparedness Effectiveness The inspector sought documentation, in addition to Technical Specifications (TS), which provides for the control and tracking of RPI organization support for the RCF. Equipwnt and facilities were also checked. This was done to determine if the requirements of Section IV G of Appendix E to 10 CFR 50 are met.
Section IV G of Appendix E to 10 CFR 50 requires licensees to employ means to ensure the Emergency Plan, its Implementiry Procedures, equipment and supplies are maintained up to date. The RCF is supported by a number of RPI organizations including the Nuclear Safety Review Board (NSRB). This support is provided on a collateral duty basis. There was no procedure in place to ensure this support is given when needed, with the exception of the TS requirumants for NSRB reviews. The need to provide for additional RPI management oversight was also noted in NRC RI inspection report 50-225/88-04. The licensee recently implemented an administrative procedure which tasks the Dean of Engineering with the responsibility for ensurirg support is given when needed and to verify that actions have been satisfactorily cmpleted.
A decontamination shower has been installed and sanitary facilities upgraded. However the drain for the decontamination facility was covered.
The licensee is con,sidering removal of the flooring covering the drain, so that decontamination water will be properly collected.
During the course of inspection 50-225/88-04, portable emergency lighting was inoperative. The licensee purchased a small hme type emergency light and mounted it at the facility access door. During the coarse of tne inspection, it was relocated to the reactor bay. While this is an improvement, the inspector suggested replacing this light with an industrial, wall mounted emergency light which could illuminate the the reactor bay, the stairs to the reactor platform and the reactor platform.
This form of lighting will insure adequate illumination so rapid and safe evacuation of the reactor bay is possible on loss of power.
j l
.
.
.
- ___
,-
- - - - - -.-
-
..
,
t i
)
A need for a wall mounted, first aid kit was identified during inspection-50-219/88-03. W e licensee purchased the kit _, and wall mcunted it.
i
..
A check of emergency equipaent indicated adequate <mimant was available
')
and that with one exception the equipnent was operational and in calibration. S e exception was a neutrun survey meter which was past due for calibration. Se licensee made arrangements to calibrate this meter before the start of the fall semester.
During two previous inspections (50-225/88-03 and 04) the need to identify.
emergency equignent, inventory the aqnimant, and develop a procedure for surveillance of this equipnent was noted. S e licensee has not completed corrective action in this area. Eis matter will be reviewed duriry a future inspection. However, as noted in paragraph 5.0, an individual has
!
now been assigned responsibility for insuring that corrective action is
taken.
Fxcept as noted above, this area is acceptable.
6.0 Training I
me inspector requested training mate. rial and training records so a determination could be made as to compliance with 10 CFR 50.47(b)(15) and
,
Section IV F of Appendix E to 10 CFR 50.
rw,montation supporting training given to staff and students was not available. 21s was previously noted during insguction 50-225/88-03 arri
!
classified as unresolved (50-225/88-03-03). During this inspection, h e
.1 licensee stated ERO personnel are trained in this area during operator i
trainiry and students are given pertinent information as part of their
irxioctrination training by the Radiation Safety Officer. Se RCF Director
)
or Reactor Supervisor also covers student response during emergencies.
'
Iacture notes or hard outs that would indicate the scope of training were
!
not available. Attendance was not documented. Se Emergency Plan does not l
address training requirements. 10 CPR 50.47
require establishment of a training program a(b)(15) and Section IV Fnd Section IV G
'
to 10 CFR 50 requires licensees to employ means to ensure the En,ergency Plan, its implementing procedures, equipment and supplies are maintained up to date.
he licensee in keeping with the management oversight procedure noted in
'
section 5.0 of this report will check atterdance, maintain a record of attendance and student hardouts. E is will be done by the Radiation Safety Officer and the Reactor Critical Facility staff on an as needed basis.
.
E is matter will be reviewed during a future inspection.
,
Except as noted above, this area of the licensee's Emergency Plan is
'
acceptable.
i
....
.
-
.
7.0 Communications Communication capability and procedures were reviewed to determine if they comply with staldard 10 CFR 50.47(b)(5) ard (b)(6), and the requirements of Section IV D of Appendix E to 10 CFR 50.
A single phone line with multiple drops is available. We licensee reviewed the adequacy of this system and decided to install another phone line.
Communication Procedure reviw indicated that while the procedures are satisfactory, the listing of phone numbers for the NPC was not in agreement with those given in NRC Office of Inspection and Enforcement Information Notice 86-28.
'Ihe licensee agreed to revise the Plan list so it is in conformity with that of the Information Notice.
Based on the above review, this portion of the licensee's Emergency Plan is acceptable.
8.0 Plan Review Emergency Plan review documentation was sought to determine if the licensee reviews and updates the plan in accordance with 10 CFR 50.47(b)(16) and Section G of Appendix E to 10 CFR 50.
Section 10 of the Emergency Plan requires annual review by the Reactor Supervisor and further requires that all changes be forwarded to the Nuclear Safety Review Board (NSRB). 'Ihe Plan does not stipulate documentation of review and determination if changes are needed. At the time of the inspec, tion, the Plan was under review ard changes were being
'
made. Upon revlew completion, the Plan will be sent to the NSRB ard to the NRC following NSRB approval. Per Rensselaer policy the reviscd Plan will not be implemented until NRC review. RPI will submit the Plan per 10 CFR 50.4 (b) (5). In the future, the licensee will document Plan reviews and l
determinations made during these reviews.
Based on the above review, this portion of the licensee's Emergency Plan is acceptable.
9.0 Exit Meetirn
'Ihe inspector met with Licensee eersonnel listed in Section 1 at the conclusion of the inspection. 'Ihe Licensee was informed no violations were identified. The inspector also dimW som areas for improvement. 'Ihe Licensee acknowledged these firdings, agreed to evaluate them, ard institute corrective action. At no time during the course of the inspection did the inspector give the Licensee written material.
_ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _
_ _.
>
- _ - _ _ - _
..
...
..
.
An inspection follow up call was made on July 5' 1989 to determine the status of RPI's responses to inspection identif1ed firdirgs., Wese were mami on RPI's t s, it was concluded dimmami with the Vice PIwost.
'1he Vice Provost was'pt ady of this response was satisfactory.
conclusion.
<
i
]
?
'i
-
)
j
..
I i
i J
l j
- _ - _ =. - - _ _ - _ _ _ - _