ML20214K559
| ML20214K559 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute |
| Issue date: | 05/18/1987 |
| From: | Coe D, Elasser T NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20214K554 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-225-87-01, 50-225-87-1, NUDOCS 8705280485 | |
| Download: ML20214K559 (3) | |
See also: IR 05000225/1987001
Text
.
.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION I
Report No.
50-225/87-01
Docket No.
50-225
License No. CX-22
Licensee:
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
Department of Nuclear Engineering and Science
Troy, New York 12181
Facility:
RPI Critical Experiments Facility
Inspection At: Schenectady, New York
Inspection Conducted: April 28, 1987
M
Inspector:hD.H.Coe, Lead
_
f//F/W7
actor Engineer (Examiner)
Date
'/
f 87
Approved By:-
-
T. C. Elsasfe jrhief, Reactor Projects Section 3C,
Date '
Division of; Reactor Projects, DRP
Inspection Summary:
Inspection on April 28, 1987 (Report No. 50-225/87-01)
Areas Inspected: The RPI Critical Facility Reference Data Handbook (RCF HAND-
BOOK), licensee response to NRC questions on the licensee proposed revisions to
the Safety Analysis Report (SAR) and Technical Specifications .for the LEU core,
licensee administered requalification written examination in January 1987, and -
other documents related to the on going involvement of the licensed operators
with the details of conversion to an LEU core.
$-
8705280485 870518
"
{DR
ADOCK 05000225'~
.
.
DETAILS
1.
Persons Contacted
Dr. D. R. Harris, Facility Director
Francisco J. Rodriquez-Vera, Facility Supervisor
2.
Based on a review of available documentation and discussion with the per-
sons contacted in paragraph one above, the inspector determined that these
two individuals, both of whom hold senior operator licenses on the RPI
Critical Facility, are sufficiently knowledgeable of the changes involved
with the LEU core conversion to warrant reactivation of their licenses for
use on the new core.
This determination was necessary because greater
than four months will have elapsed between the use of their licenses on
the old core and the initial core loading of LEU fuel and subsequent
startup testing.
For this situation, the provisions of 10 CFR 55.31(e)
require that the operators " demonstrate to the Commission that their
knowledge and understanding of facility operation and administration are
satisfactory." Although certification from - an authorized representative -
of the facility licensee may be accepted by the Commission to meet this
requirement, because the reactivation of licenses involved a new core
configuration, an on-site determination was required.
Both operators identified in paragraph one above are directly involved
with the completion of a new SAR, revision of affected operating proced-
ures, and changes to Technical Specifications. The inspector reyiewed the
above documents, NRC staff questions regarding these documents, and the
licensee's responses to the staff's questions. In addition, documentation
associated with routine instrument checks of the area radiation monitor,
source range instrumentation calibration, and fuel storage inspections
were reviewed for the period since the old core was removed.
No discrep-
ancies were found.
On the basis of this review and discussion, the
inspector determined that these operators were fully cognizant of and
involved with the details of the core conversion and were continuing to
carry out those licensed duties required in the absence of an installed
core.
The inspector reviewed the licensee administered January 1987 requalifica-
tion examination and found it to be adequate under the circumstances al-
though shorter in length than is normally expected. Only the above two
operators took the examination, which each wrote for the other. The re-
maining licensed operator at this facility did not participate in this -
examination.
.
-
--
- - -
r
-
=
,
r_
~
s
.
.
_
.
.
3
The inspector reviewed the licensee's RCF HANDBOOK which serves as the
complete collection of all documents required for the safe operation of
the facility. This document also serves as the training guide for opera-
tor license candidates. It includes the current SAR, Technical Specifica-
tions, operating and experimental procedures, and Emergency Plan.
Al-
'
though changes to these documents were not complete, the inspector found
no additional areas which would require change other than those already
being addressed by the licensee.
The inspector noted that the operating
'
and experimental procedures would require approval by .the facility's
safety review committee prior to implementation on the new core.
The inspector reviewed the licensee proposed changes to their requalifica-
tion program which have been submitted .to the Division of Licensee Per-
formance and Quality Evaluation, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation for
,
'
approval. The inspector pointed out several areas in the proposed program
which would eventually require change due to the provisions of the
10 CFR 55 rule change effective May 26,-1987.
3.
Conclusion
The two operators identified in paragraph one of this report have main-
tained adequate knowledge of the facility, its operation, and the changes
required by the conversion to LEU fuel. These licenses can be reactivated
.
upon proper application by each operator.
The facility licensee should
l
determine the need for the remaining . licensed operator to hold a license
valid for the LEU core.
If this need is determined to exist, then the
-
operator should participate in the requalification program and document
this participation in an application to the NRC for reactivation of. the :
license on the new core.
Due to the change in core configuration, the
requirement to reapply to the NRC will. continue to apply in this case
after May 26, 1987 even though the new 10 CFR 55 rule allows for facility
licensee reactivation of an inactive license without certification to the
NRC.
d
. _ ,
,
_,.m-.
,m
-.
_