IR 05000020/1993002
| ML20035G888 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | MIT Nuclear Research Reactor |
| Issue date: | 04/21/1993 |
| From: | Bores R, Dragoun T NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20035G883 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-020-93-02, 50-20-93-2, NUDOCS 9304300149 | |
| Download: ML20035G888 (4) | |
Text
-
,
!
.
.
i U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION I
'
Report No.:
50-20/93-02 Docket No.:
50-20
,
i
License No.:
E-32 i
Licensee:
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
{
138 Albany Street Cambridge. Massachusetts 02139 Facility Name:
MIT Research Reactor Inspection At:
Cambridge. Massachusetts f
'!
Inspection Conducted:
March 17-19.1993 i
Inspector:
mun5 w&%
'/.L/ 7J i
Thomas Dragoun, Project /cientist, Effluents date Radiation Protection Section (ERPS), Facilities Radiological Safety and Safeguards Branch (FRSSB)
,
i
!
Approved By:
YA/N 8
--
Robert p6n:s, Chief, ERPS, FRSSB, date l
'
Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards r
i l
Areas Reviewed: Implementation of Technical Specification Amendment No. 27 regarding changes to the treatment room for human therapy, a dry run of the therapy procedure, and
,
review of plans for loading of spent fuel for shipment.
l
!
Results: No safety concerns or violations were observed. Preparations for the trial runs of boron capture therapy using human patients were nearly complete, and preparations for the shipment of spent fuel were good.
9304300149 930422 PDR ADOCK 05000020 G
.
, _ _ _
.
.
.
.
?
..
.
DETAILS 1.0 Imijviduals Contacted l
'J. Bernard, Director of Reactor Operations
- O. Harling, Director of Nuclear Reactor Laboratory j
- E.12u, Assistant Operations Superintendent y
F. Mass 6, Institute Radiation Protection Officer i
- F. McWilliams, Reactor Radiation Protection Officer
- T. Newton, Assistant Operations Superintendent
- Personnel present at the Exit Interview on March 19, 1993. Additional personnel,
including personnel from the New England Medical Center (NEMC), were contacted
,
or interviewed during the course of the inspection.
~
2.0 Imolementation of Technical Soccification Chance i
Amendment No. 27, issued on February 16, 1992, added Section 6.5 to the facility
Technical Specifications. This new Section specified the requirements for the use of i
the Medical Facility Beam for human therapy. The majority of the new requirements
!
concerned specific safety features to be added for the treatment room. The inspector requested the licensee to demonstrate the operability of each of the new features, including backup and manual operation when appropriate. All systems functioned as
'
required. The scram functions were not tested since the reactor was not operating.
The inspector reviewed other requirements, such as training, surveillance, and
,
procedures, and found them nearly complete. The licensee estimated that all remaining items could be completed and the first patient treated in'about one month.
3.0 Patient Dry Run
A mock therapy session was conducted with full participation by the NEMC and MIT staff designated to perform the real therapy. This included the Attending Physician, Radiological Nurse / Technician, Medical Physicist, Nuclear Reactor laboratory (NRL)
Director, Reactor Operations (RO) Director, Assistant Superintendents, selected operations staff, and personnel who will perform the prompt gamma analysis for blood boron level. A reactor operator acted as the patient and arrived on a gurney.
All activities were controlled in accordance with the following step-by-step l
procedures.
-
PM 3.14.3.3, Conduct of Human Therapy Using the Medical Therapy Facility Beam
-
PM 3.14.4.1, Searching and Securing of the Medical Therapy Facility The technique that will be used for actual treatments was followed during the dry run.
,
-
-
..
.
..
.
The Director of Operations acted as overall coordinator and read aloud each step of
,
'
the procedure. When each action was completed by the team, the Director verified the action, recorded his initials at that step of the procedure, and proceeded to the
next step. Combined with the highly detailed procedures, this approach resulted in excellent formality and control of activities. The inspector reviewed other draft pmcedures for the checks and smveillance on the room prior to and after use and
>
found them also to be highly detailed and of excellent quality. The licensee plans to
,
submit the final versions of all procedures for information to NRC prior to treating the first patient. During the dry run, the licensee also demonstrated a computerized j
beam monitoring system under development to replace the current displays that give
" beam counts" and require hand calculations of dose.
'
Within the scope of this review, the inspector found the licensee's implementation of TS 6.5 to be excellent. However, the inspector also noted that the analyses of the i
radiological hazards for routine and abnormal conditions were not available. In
!
addition, the details ofinterfacing the hospital and reactor Health Physics programs to identify and resolve differences were not complete. For example, the maximum
- '
allowable patient dose rate during return to the hospital was not established. The l
MIT Radiation Protection Officer (RPO) stated that these matters would be resolved
[
prior to treating the first patient. This matter will be reviewed in a future inspection.
+
(50-20/93-024)1)
.
4.0 Spent Fuel Movement
,
The licensee had scheduled several shipments of spent fuel to reduce the on-site
,
inventory. Although a shipment using the BMI-1 cask had been scheduled to occur l
during this inspection, the shipment was delayed due to the temporary unavailability of the shipping cask. However, the licensee was able to demonstrate the fuel handling technique for the inspector up to and including the loading of fuel elements into the cask basket, which was on site. A picture record was provided by the RPO that documented the most recent movement of the cask from the truck bed to the spent fuel pool. As described by the licensee's staff, attention to personnel safety and l
prevention of damage to fuel appeared to be good.
Movement of fuel in the spent fuel pool is accomplished in accordance with Special Procedure SR#-0-93-2, " Fuel Element Transfers from Spent Fuel Pool to BMI-1 i
Basket", issued on February 4,1993. The three personnel who pe_ formed the fuel
'
movement were an Assistant Operations Superintendent, a Senior Reactor Operator, and the Assistant Radiation Protection Officer. All were knowledgeable, experienced,
and provided good responses to hypothetical accidents posed by the inspector. The fuel movement procedure was followed step-by-step in the same fashion noted in Section 3.0 during use of the therapy room, resulting in excellent control. All special tools and monitoring equipment were be in good working condition. HP controls were excellent. Communications with the control room were prompt and clear.
-
-
..
..
.
.-
....
b.
)
l
<.
.,
.
Since the spent fuel pool is inside containment, which is a secure area, no additional f
security controls were required. Within the scope of this review, the licensee's
program for handling spent fuel was found to be excellent.
!
!
5.0 Exit Interview
-!
-
t i
The inspector met with the licensee representatives indicated in Section 1.0 on March
,
19,1993 and summarized the scope and findings of this inspection.
t
..
!
r i
.
!
!
,
$
i
,
t l
l l
t
.
i h
a
?
,
I