IR 05000020/1989002
| ML20246D975 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | MIT Nuclear Research Reactor |
| Issue date: | 08/15/1989 |
| From: | Conklin C, Lazarus W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20246D970 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-020-89-02, 50-20-89-2, NUDOCS 8908280356 | |
| Download: ML20246D975 (5) | |
Text
_ _ _ _. _ _
-. _
_,
-
n
,
,
i.,.
a
, - -
-
.W
.
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION-
-
REGION I
p
&
Report No:
50-20/89-02'
-Docket No:
50-20
- License No:
R-31 Priority.
Category.C-Licensee:
Massachusetts Institute of Technoloav
-
Research Reactor
'
38 Albany Street
'Cambridae. Massachusetts 02139 Facility Name:
MIT Research Reactor (MITR-II)
Inspection At:
Cambridae. Massachusetts Inspection Conducted:
July 17-18.1989 Inspector:
[
f!/f!P1 Craig ConkJin, Senior Emergency date
. Preparedness Specialist, DRSS Approved By:'
M
- J 47 ilfyam La Jras, Chief, Emergency
' date
-
Preparedness Section, FRSSB, DRSS Inspection Summary:
Insoection on Julv 17-18. 1989. (Recort No. 50-20/89-02)
Areas Inspectedt A routine, announced emergency preparedness. inspection was conducted at the MIT Research Reactor. ' The inspection areas included:
Changes to the Emergency Preparedness Program; Emergency Facilities and
. Equipment; Notifications and Communications; Training; Drills and Exercises; and follow-up on previously identified areas requiring corrective action.
Results: No violations were identified.
r 8908280356 890815 PDR..ADOCK 05000020 Q
'
FDC y,
1___________________.______
__
.I
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
~
,
.
-
,
~.
[J l'
-
,
.
.
DETAILS
'
~
' l '.'O
' Persons Contacted E'
The. following licensee representatives attended the exit ineeting held on H
July 18,1989.
J.-Bernard, Director, Reactor Operations'
.K. Kwok, Plant Superintendent
,
y 0. Harling, Director,' Reactor Laboratory F. McWilliams, Radiation Protection Officer-The inspector also interviewed and observed the activities of other licensee personnel.
2.0
' Licensee Action on Previously Identified Items
'
CLOSED (50-20/88-03-01):. Provide controlled distribution of the Emergency Plan to the NRC.
Controlled copies of the Emergency Plan have been provided to NRC Region I.
CLOSED- (50-20/88-03-02): The licensee has an Emergency Action Level, (EAL) for General Emergency based upon exceeding 1 REM whole body and 5 REM thyroid exposure, even though that level was beyond the design basis of~the reactor.
' This EAL was conservative in nature and consistent with federal guidance.
CLOSED (50-20/88-03-03):. Procedures IX and 1Y do not outline the tasks to be' performed by the. Emergency Director.
.These procedures clearly delineate the tasks to be performed by the Shift Supervisor and Emergency Director.
CLOSED (50-20/88-03-04):
Low range Self-Reading Dosimeters.(SRDs) were not available in the Control Room emergency lockers.
SRDs in the 0-200mr, 0-10R and 0-100R ranges have been provided.
CLOSED (50-20/88-03-05): The Unusual Event classification for elevated-auxiliary core purge monitor readings must continue for 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> before the event would be classified.
This event was based upon an integrated off-site dose related to a high
~
auxiliary core purge monitor reading averaged over 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />. The licensee indicated that an Unusual Event would be declared when discovered. 'The licensee agreed tc clarify this EAL by stating that it was-based upon an integrated reading.
4-
. _ _ _ _ _ - _
__ _
,
,
'
E..
.
>
=
-
.
-
' CLOSED (50-20/88-03-06): :The Emergency Flan does 'not provide for 15 minute notifications to off-site officials.
'The Emergency Operating Procedures, section'4.4.4.14 have been revised to reflect 15 minute ' notifications to off-site officials.
?
- 3.0 ' Operational Status of the Emeroency Preparedness Proaram.
3.1 Chanaes to the Emeraency Preparedness Proaram r
There have been no major changes to the Emergency Plan or Implementing Procedures since the last inspection.. Changes that F
'have been made received review from two Senior Reactor Operators,.
and approval of the Director, Reactor Operations and the Safeguards Committee.
Based upon the above review, this area was acceptable.
3.2 Facilities and Eautoment The. inspector toured the Control Room, the Emergency Support Center (ESC),.the MIT Campus Police. Headquarters, the Radiation Protection Office, and the MIT Medical Center. All facilities were found to be'as described in the Emergency Plan.. Equipment
'and instrumentation was operable and calibrated as appropriate.
Inventories of supplies and equipment were current. The inspector observed a demonstration of the Reactor. Alarm Panel and the Closed Circuit Television System (CCTV) from_the ESC. The alarms functioned as intended. The inspector was readily able to observe
.the test alarms and other pertinent instrument readings in the Control Room with the CCTV.
Based upon~ the above, this area was acceptable.
Notifications and Communication MIT Campus Police were responsible for site security and after l
hours notification of staff.
Reactor alarms and building fire
,
'
alarms were received at the Campus Police dispatch center. These alarms were operable and the police staff was knowledgeable concerning their use. All call lists were current. There were a variety of dedicated radio and telephone circuits from MIT to Cambridge officials.
Based upon tho above review, this area was acceptable.
l
-_.
- - -
_ - - - _ -
- _ -
_- _ O
- - - - _ _ _
l :,
'
.
o a a
.
-
.
3.4 Off-site Coordination o
Letters of Agreement (LOAs) with'the Cembridge Police and Fire-Departments were current and last updated in November 1987. MIT-updates LOAs every two years. The inspector determined that the'-
LOA with the Cambridge Civil Defense Director was not current.
The licenseo conducted an indoctrination lecture and a facility.
,
tour for the Cambridge Police Department on April 26, 1988. This
- included a' review of the off-site plan for assistance. The
-
. licensee was working with the Cambridge Fire Department to schedule this training for them as well. MIT was working with
Massachusetts General Hospital regarding the upgrading of medical-support facilities. The inspector determined that the support agreement was current, however the LOA has not been updated since 1982. The licensee agreed to update those LOAs greater than two years old. The Cambridge. Fire and Police Departments participate with MIT during their annual exercise.. Additionally, the MIT-Campus Police were very knowledgeable of the off-site interfaces and in fact deal daily with Cambridge officials.
Except as noted above,'this area was acceptable.
3.5 Trainina. Orills and Exercises Training for the Emergency Response Organization'(ER0) consists of two lectures. This trro ing was current. -Reactor Operator and Senior Reactor 0perator a sining consists of an emergency plan lecture and associated qui c and-a self-study Abnormal Operating'
Procedures review. This training was current. MIT Campus Police.
receive a lecture and hands-on training in notification and response es well as off-site monitoring. This training was current.
Jraining records were accessible and current.
Lessons plans were svailable.
The licensee condacted the drills specified in their Emergency Plan. The Medical drill was conducted on June 29,'1989 and involved the MIT Medical Center. The drill was well documented-.
,
The inspector.noted that more simulation of serious. injuries and H
higher levels of. contamination would enhance training. The licensee agreed. The Annual exercise was held on July 10, 1989 l
and was based upon an operational event. This drill was also well documented and included comments for improving performance.
J Based upon the above, this area was acceptable.
,
--- _
D
p.
m",
,
.
__
.
3 t-]
_
-
p-
,
,
...
'
ro
,
{
- ,:,
-
.:
e-
.. :
- .-
,
.:
,.
..,.. _;;
.
-. -
_u
.5_
4'0'
[xit Meetina
.
.
- The iinspector met with licensee personnel denoted in SectiorF1 at the 4 <'
. conclusion of the inspection to discuss the' scope and findings of-this :
' inspection as detailed in.this report.
.Th'eLlicensee was informed that no violations were' identified. The-licensee acknowledged these findings _ and ' agreed to evaluate them and institute corrective actions as appropriate.
.
At no time during this inspection did:the inspector provide any written information.to the licensee.
..
l L
$ E
-