IR 05000020/1986002
| ML20212N465 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | MIT Nuclear Research Reactor |
| Issue date: | 08/21/1986 |
| From: | Cioffi J, Shanbaky M NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20212N455 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-020-86-02, 50-20-86-2, NUDOCS 8608280243 | |
| Download: ML20212N465 (6) | |
Text
__
.
.
J U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION I
,
Report No.
50-20/86-02 Docket No.
50-20 License No.
R-37 Licensee:
Massachusetts Institute of Technology 138 Albany Street
Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139 Facility Name:
MIT Research Reactor Inspection At:
Cambridge, Massachusetts Inspection Conducted:
July 21-22, 1986 aAu.sb e
)
4, 8-2I- %
Inspecto
/
,,,
ean A. C1'off(,/Radt(ti6n Specialist, FRPS date
/
Approved by:
M, h h, I ff/2/ !
,
MohamedM.Shanbaky,Chiefe'
date Facilities Radiation Protection Section
'
Inspection Summary:
Inspection Conducted on July 21-22, 1986 (Inspection Report No. 50-20/86-02)
Areas Inspected:
Routine, unannounced inspection of radiological controls at the MIT Research Reactor, including:
status of previously identified items, training and qualification of personnel, implementation of the radiation protection program, internal and external exposure controls, and effluent and i
envircnmental monitoring.
Results: No violations or deviations were identified during this review.
.
a 860E280243 860821 PDR ADOCK 05000 20 G
_ _.
. _ _ - _ _ _ -.
.
.
.
..
.
.
I
-
1.0 Personnel Contacted
- J. Bernard, Reactor Superintendent
{
- L. Clark, Jr., Assistant Director, NRL and Director, Reactor Operations
- P. Coggio, Reactor Radiation Protection Project Technician
- A. Ducatman, M.S., M.D., Director, Environmental Medical Service
- M. Galanek, Assistant Radiation Protection Officer
- K. Kwok, Assistant Reactor Superintendent
- denotes attendance at exit interview l
Other licensee personnel were also ::ontacted or interviewed.
!
l 2.0 Purpose l
The purpose of this routine health physics inspection was to review the licensee's radiation protection program with respect to the following
elements:
Status of Previously Identified Items
-
-
Trainir.g and Qualification of Personnel
-
Implementation of the Radiation Protection Program Internal and External Exposure Controls
-
-
Effluent and Environmental Monitoring 3.0 Status of Previously Identified Items 3.1 (Closed) 76-04-~02 (Unresolved) Argon levels including effluent releases with respect to ALARA considerations.
The licensee's response to the concerns raised in Inspection Report No. 76-04, and subsequent corrtspondence from NRR on October 20, 1977 was reviewed. The licensee's letter, dated January 6, 1978, provided an analysis of all sources of Argon-41 production and the methods they employed to reduce or eliminate these sources. The report also determined the dose to the maximally exposed individual and to the total population within 50 miles and compared these doses to the limits specified in 10 CFR 20 and to the natural background in the Boston area.
Finally, the licensee performed a cost-benefit analysis of the modifications they made to the reactor to reduce argon levels, The licensee's analysis determined that the dose to the maximally exposed individual from Argon-41 releases was 0.8 millirem per year.
This dose represents approximately 0.16% of the limits specified in 10 CFR 20 and 0.8% of the natural background radiation in the Boston area. The licensee calculated the dose from Argon-41 releases to the population within 50 miles to be 46 man-rem per year. This dose represents 0.005% of the limits specified in 10 CFR 20 and 0.009% of the dose from natural background radiation in the Boston are,,
.
-
'
The licensee determined that the cost-benefit ratio for all Argon reduction work was in the range of $550-1100 per man-rem. These figures compared favorably to the guidelines specified in 10 CFR 50, Appendix I, section II.D. Additional Argon reduction work took place in 1985 (see paragraph 7.0).
This item is considered closed.
3.2 (Closed) 86-01-02 (Inspector Follow-up) Calibration of personnel pocket dosimeters. The licensee initiated the calibration of their pocket ion chambers. The dosimeters will be calibrated semi-annually using a 5 curie Cesium-137 source. This item is considered closed.
4.0 Training and Qualification of Personnel
,
The licensee's program for training and qualification of personnel was reviewed with respect to criteria contained in 10 CFR 19.12, " Instructions to Workers";
-
-
Technicai Specification 7.10, " Radiation Protection Program."
The licensee's performance with respect to the above criteria was deter-mined by:
review of the " Massachusetts Institute of Technology Required
-
Procedures for Radiation Protection,"
-
discussions with licensee personnel.
Within the scope of this review, no violations were identified. The licensee appeared to be training and qualifying. radiation workers in accordance with regulatory requirements and the conditions of their license.
5.0 Implementation of the Radiation Frotection Program
'
The licensee's' program for controlling radioactive materials and con-tamination, providing surveillance and monitoring, and establishing and maintaining administrative radiological work controls was reviewed relative to criteria and commitments in:
-
10 CFR 19.11, 19.12, 20.201, 20.203 and 20.401; Technical Specification 3.8, " Radioactive Effluents and Radiation
-
Monitors";
-
Technical Specification 4.3, " Reactor Control,' Safety, and Radiation Monitoring System Surveillance"; and
-
-
Technical Specification 7.10, " Radiation Protection Program."
The licensee's performance related to the above criteria was determined by:
.
.. -,_
--
.
_-_ -
-
-
-.
--
.
-
.
-.
.-
-
!
!
l facility tour on July 21, 1986 to observe work in progress; postings,
-
si ns, and labels; and radiation monitoring instrumentation;
,
'
review of calibration records for hand and foot monitors, survey
-
instrumentation, area radiation monitors;
-
review of survey records for radiation, contamination, and airborne radioactivity; and
-
discussions with licensee personnel.
-
Within the scope of this review, no violations or deviations were
identified.
The' inspector witnessed the lifting of the reactor head and l
noted that licensee personnel observed the proper industrial safety. pre-cautions, and efficient contamination control techniques. The inspector
,
I also observed the addition of signs to remind experimenters to survey
' tneir work areas for possible higher radiation intensities around beam
.;
l -
ports.
i Two areas for improvement were identified for licensee attention.
The licensee maintained no implementing procedures for the reactor
-
!
radiation protection program.
For~1nstance,-there were no procedures
I for calibration of survey instruments and pocket dosimeters, when to
'
I read pocket dosimeters and log the reading before re zeroing, nor how j
to resolve discrepancies between pocket dosimeters and film badge.
-
'
results. Tne licensee stated that due to the long employment of all
)
health physics personnel, such procedures were not necessary.
The inspector stated that such procedures were necessary for the program
l to be implemented consistently if the staff were replaced due to
<
'
illness or retirement.
The licensee stated that because of the
{
upcoming retirement of the Reactor Radiation Safety Officer, such
'
implementing procedures would be developed and established. This
-,
item will be reviewed in a future inspection (86-02-01).
The licensee uses a 5 curie Cesium-137 source for their instrument-
-
and pocket dosimeter calibrations. However, the source'is used in a l
-
{
room without interlocks, warning lights or alarming devices at the
'
j entrances to indicate when the source is exposed. _The inspector
!
!
discussed this practice with licensee representatives, who stated 1-that all calibrations were performed when the staff and experimenters
were not present, and the individual performing the calibration
.
remained in the. vicinity.to provide positive control over the area.
I The inspectors stated that while the 4:ontrols being used met minimum _
l regulatory requirements, they may not be sufficient to prevent an-
'
i unplanned exposure should the individual leave the area, or a guard
,
inadvertently enter the room.
Following this discussion, the licensee i
'
stated that they would:
1)~ set up a barrier to prevent personnel
'
from inadvertently wandering near the calibration area, and 2) modify
,
i the calibration facility with warning lights, alarming devices, and/or
,
i interlocks to prevent inadvertent personnel entry.
This item will be
,
l reviewed in a future inspection (86-02-02).
'
i
!
'
i
!
!
i
_
.
._-..,,__. _ _ _
.
_
.. --
.-_
__
__
.
-
-
.
.
5.0 Internal and External Exposure Controls The licensee's internai and external exposure-control program was reviewed against criteria provided in:
10 CFR 20.101, 20.102, 20.103, 20.104, 20.105, 20.201, 20.202,
-
20.203 and 20.401.
The licensee's performance relative to the criteria above was determined bv:
-
a review of exposure records for 6 radiation workers;
-
tour of the counting laboratory and whole body counter in Building 20; and
-
discussions with licensee personnel.
Within the scope of this review, no violations were identified. The licensee uses Landauer film badges for dosimetry of record. Visitors to the reactor-are issued pocket dosimeters.
Internal exposures are monitored by urinalysis and whole body counting.
7.0 Effluent and Environmental Monitoring The licensee's program for monitoring liquid and gaseous effluents was reviewed with respect to criteria contained in:
-
-
Technical Specifications 3.8, 4.3 and 7.13.5.
-
The licensee's performance related to the above criteria was determined by:
-
tour and observation of control room effluent radiation monitor indicators; review of effluent monitor logs;
-
review of the following effluent monitor calibrations. procedures:
-
P.M. 6.1.3.9.1, " Water Monitor Calibration Procedure"
P.M. 6.1.3.9.2, " Particulate Monitor Calibration Procedure"
P.M. 6.1.3.9.3, " Gaseous Monitor Calibration Procedure"
P.M. 6.5.9.2, " Environmental Monitor Calibration Frocedure"
_
._
- _.
- - - - - - - -
,
.
'
-
- l review of the 1984 and 1985 Annual Reports;
-
-
discussions with licensee personnel.
,
Within the scope of this review, there were no violations or deviations identified. The licensee was calibrating all effluent and environmental monitors in accordance with license conditions.
Environmental surveys
indicated that there were no inconsistencies for the monitoring periods during 1984 and 1985..Furthermore, the licensee was able to further reduce gaseous ~ releases in 1985 by additional studies of the sources generating the Argon-41 in the reactor and by the use of an inert gas blanket system for the reactor.
In previous years, the licensee dis-charged 7000 to 8000 Curies of Argon-41 per year.
In 1985, the i
licensee was able to reduce the gaseous discharge to about 4000 Curies for the year.
(See additional information on Argon-41 released in paragraph 3.0.).
.
8.0 Exit Interview r
The inspector met with the licensee's representatives (denoted in Para-graph 1) at the conclusion of the Inspection on July 22, 1986. The
inspecter summarized the purpose and scope of the inspection and findings as described in this report.
,
f f
I
e
.
J I
-
i
[
i s
s i
l-