ML20009E390
| ML20009E390 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute |
| Issue date: | 07/10/1981 |
| From: | Martin T NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | Lahey R RENSSELAER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE, TROY, NY |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20009E392 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8107280127 | |
| Download: ML20009E390 (2) | |
See also: IR 05000225/1981001
Text
!
.
[ymgk
UNITED STATES
-
j
[
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
L
j
REGION I
g
631 PARK AVENUE
Os
%,
f
KING OF PRUSSIA, PENNSYLVANIA 194 S
gg
Docket No. 50-225
m
e
.5
%
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
q'
f/./
Department of Nuclear Engineering and Science
b7
Q'f f
O
ATTN:
R. T. Lahey, Chairman
OL 2 7 JSgl g
Troy, New York 12'.81
-!
,
- D
Gentlemen:
%
9
Subject:
Inspection 81-01
This refers to the special safety inspection conducted by Mr. R. L. Nimitz of
this office on January 22-23, 1981 at the Critical Facility in Schenectady, New
Yc.k of activities authorized by NRC License No. CX-22 and to the discussions of
our findings held by Mr. Nimitz with you and members of your staff at the conclu-
sion of the inspection.
Areas examined during this inspection are described in the Office of Inspection
and Enforcement Inspection Report which is enclosed with this letter. Within
these areas, the inspection consisted of selective examinations of procedures
and representative records, interviews with personnel, and observations by the
inspector.
Based on the results of this inspection, it appears that certain of your activities
were not conducted in full compliance with NRC requirements, as set forth in the
Notice of Violation, enclosed herewith as Appendix A.
These items of noncom-
pliance have been categorized into the levels described in the Federal Register
Notice (45 FR 66754) dated October 7, 1980. You are required to respond to this
letter and in preparing your response, you should follow the instructions in
Appendix A.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the Commission's regulations, a copy of this
letter and the enclosures will be placed in the NRC's Public Document Room.
If
this report contains any information that you (or your contractors) believe to
be exempt from disclosure under 10 CFR 9.5(a)(4), it is necessary that you (a)
s
4
the date of this
notify this office by telephone within ten (10) days f
letter of your ir:tention to file a request for withholding; and (b) submit
within 25 days from the date of this letter a written application to this office
to withhold such information.
Consistent with section 2.790(b)(1), any such
application must be accompanied by an affidavit executed by the owner of the
information which identifies the document or part sought to be withheld, and
which contains a full statement of the reasons on the basis which it is claimed
that the information should be withheld from public disclosure.
This section
8107280127 810710
'
I
PDR fDOCK 05000225
6l l
G
)
,
(
.
.
.
.
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
2
i10 JUL 1981
further requires the statement to address with specificity the considerations
listed in 10 CFR 2.790(b)(4).
The information sought to be withheld shall be
incorporated as far es possible into a separate part of the affidavit.
If we do
not hear from you in this regard within the specified periods noted above, the
report will be placed in the Publi Document Room. The telephane notification
of your intent to request withholaing, or any request for an extension of the 10
day period which you believe necessary, should be mada to the Supervisor, Files,
Mail and Records, U3NRC Region I, at (215) 337-5223.
We have reviewed the April 27, 1981 letter from Messrs. D. R. Harris and P. R.
Nelson of the Rensselear Polytechnic Institute Critical Facility. Appendix A
and the enclosed inspection report appropriately reflect the information
provided in that letter.
Regarding the apparent lack of a primary coolant
system leak procedure, we have determined that a procedure was in place, but
that it lacked adequate scope ind definitive guidance. We understand that
action has been taken by you to correct the specific procedural deficiencies
identifed by our inspector.
Because adequate approved procedures must be in
place to provide appropriate guidance to operating personnel, a review of your
current facility procedures, to identify similar shortcomings, appears warranted.
Consequently, in your reply to this letter, please address your plans in this
matter. We appreciate your cooperation with us.
The responses directed by this letter are not subject to the clearance
procedures of the Office of Management and Budget as required by the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, PL 96-511.
If you have any questions concerning this inspection, we will be pleased to
discuss them with you.
Sincerely,
ou,e-
Thomas T. Martin, Ar_ ting Director
Division of Engineering and
Technical Inspection
Enclosures:
1.
Appendix A, Notice of Violation
2.
Office of Inspection and Enforcement Inspection Report
Number 50-225/81-01
cc w/encls:
Peter R. Nelson, Supervisor RPI Critical Facility
D. R. Harris, Director RPI Critical Facility
.
mi
- .e
-e-.-
- ,
v
-
m
,. _ _ - .