ML20023D756
| ML20023D756 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000192 |
| Issue date: | 05/23/1983 |
| From: | Thomas C Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Klein U TEXAS, UNIV. OF, AUSTIN, TX |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8306020702 | |
| Download: ML20023D756 (7) | |
Text
3 9
3 U
9 f)
(
l DISTRIBUTION:
L.Documerit Control MAY 2 3 g NRC PDR PRC Docket No. 50-192 NSIC SSPB Reading C. Thomas P. Anderson Dr. Dale E. Klein, Director H. Bernard Nuc. lear Reactor Laboratory University of Texas Austin, Texas 78712
Dear Dr. Kliin:
The staff has completed its initial review of the University of Texas Research Reactor Emergency Plan submitted on October 28, 1982. The plan was reviewed against the requirements of Appendix E to 10 CFR Part 50 and the guidance criteria set forth in Revision 1 to Regulatory Guide 2.6'and ANS!/ANS-15.16-1982, " Emergency Planning for Research Reactors."
Non-power reactor licensees were requested by generic letter dated June 16,1982 to use these documents to meet the requirements of the amended emergency planning regulations.
Based on its review, the staff has concluded that the University of Texas Research Reactor does not currently meet the requirements or the guidelines of the above-mentioned documents. Accordingly, we request that you provide the additional information identified in the enclosed staff Emergency Plan Review by July 9,1983.
Following receipt of your revisions, the staff will continue its review.
If you have any questions, please contact your Project Manager, Harold Bernard at (301) 492-9799.
Sincerely, i
5 Cecil 0. Thonas, Chief Standardization & Special Projects Branch Division of Licensing
Enclosure:
As stated cc: See next page 8306020702 830523 PDR ADOCK 05000192 F
PDR n r x 'ir
[.hk....
.D ;SSPB_
emc4..D cu:~9 c.c... A.Wer.s.qn.....
43........
=>
. 8 3...... 5.E/.8 3........ 5/A83.........
une mm sie no,soi sacu ouo OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
- u.s. GPO 1983-400-247 m
.a.~. n. -
~ ~ n w
,n
~.~ v.- n.~.
. --- ~ <:t
ki
.e.
University of Texas cc w/ enclosure (s):
~
Direc+4r, Governor's Budget and Planning Office Executive Office Building 411 West 13th Street Austin, Texas,78701
' ~
~
Mr. Thomas Bauer Nuclear Reactor Laboratory University of Texas
~
6 s
M e
4 4
___l___.____a_.
m_._____
Energency Plan Review fn The flatter Of The University Of Texas Research Reactor Docket No, 50-192 License No. R-92 INTRODUCTION
~
The University of Texas filed with the Nuclear Regulatory. Commission its Research Reactor Emergency Plan for their facility licensed pursuant to Title 10 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 50.
This report provides an evaluation of the emergency plan for the University of Texas Research Reactor, License No. R-92.
3 The' plan was reviewed against the. requirements of Appendix E to 10 CFR Part 50.
In addition, the staff review extended to ascertaining the degree of conformance with the guidance criteria set forth in Revision 1 to Regulatory Guide 2.6 and American National Standard ANSI /ANS-15.16-1982 as a method acceptable to the NRC staff for compliance with specific parts of the Commission's regulations.
CONCLUSIONS Based on our review, the staff concludes that the emergency plan for the University of Texas Research Reactor is not acceptable as it does not ade-quately address the requirements of Appendix E to 10 CFR Part 50.
For specific guidance, the staff recommends that the licensee consult ANSI /
ANS-15.16-1982 for a more detailed discussion of research reactor emergency planning.
The additional information necessary to correct the following iden-tified deficiencies shculd be consistent with the planning standards specified therein.
Tr.is evaluation report follows the format of Secticn 3 of ANSI /ANS-15.16-1982.
Section 3.1, Introduction 1.
Appendix A'. 2 (campus diagram) should be upgraded to be more readable and clearly identify the location of Taylor Hall and include access routes used by offsite support groups.
Section 3.2, Definitions
~
1.
.The plan should clarify terns contained in section 1.2 such as " site boundary" and "Energency Planning Zones."
2.
Additional terms such as " modular component system," "MPC," and " emergency support center" should be included in the definitions section of the plan.
Further, the plan should be reviewed to ensure that other unique terms are either included in the definitions section of the plan or are sufficiently
' explained in the body of the plan.
o a'
=
t 3nsibilitics I-
~~~
~ '
~~ '
i-
.:;y :,.+. s -g m, f
k 1
ow the "three levels" of emergency response
}be provided in the plan,(specifically the
@;aN[ S;WE.9%@;7.i%
g.g g7lg!j.gg,;q}j/Ated
~#
g&,. _. h.1lf!5hh.j@
bilities).
syyll.
7 (..~,-
.gf
- gme'ntation of the reactor staff should be
.s,7.gs~.
A, u.
Ji
?.'i:Q %.%,g
,. m
. W r M b.?/ h ~ p 4 W' ~ d _ w," G :f ~ q
- 2
, a the arrangements, capabilities, and respon-T i
3 groups should be provided in the plan.
$4) illustrating the relationship between the
~
ite support groups should be reorganized to fccal point of emergency response is the at all ir.dividuals who may act as emergency l
- '2: ?.
-I"l,;,
- ":)
- trained for this position.
- 1.
' W f
Ahat the transfer of emergency director respon-7 merber will only be made after he has been of the emergency situation.
the emergency director's responsibilities and p responsibilities which cannot be delegated, Ptective action decisions, should be included a lire of successior, with re:pect tc the cuty l.n the ecercercy situation to tne rews r.edia cluding a line of succession) in charge of l
Further, the culd be identified in the p an.
?ticular responsibilities associated with this
. -:f/Tv v
4 s
'.,.
- i...#. 9*... e
.~ r 5g g,,. r5".yME5$".,
,,e _.$$d;%
.~
5?%r'52 O': '
"AT2^'
D omprehensive description of the recovery
.. T^
ffing and responsibilities.
- y c
i bationSystem pcify how the EAL's are used in emergency classi-tion decisionnaking.
t i
l 2
s Section 3.5, Emergency Act.on Levels 1.
The EAL's in the plan should reference the specific process or radio-logical monitors and their particular readings that will provide notice of an emergency situation thus allowing for prompt, accurate classifi-cation.
2.
The plan should describe in mo~re detail how EAL's will be integrated into the emergency response (to i.nicude a description of the kinds of actions that onsite and offsite groups will initiate).
Section 3.7, Emergency Response 1.
The plan should describe the methods of notification of offsite support gr:vps in greater detail and include provisions for keeping the call lists up to date.
E.
The plan should provide information concerning the methods used for gathering and processing data for assessment actions to include a brief discussion of monitoring capabilities for measuring direct radiation and contamination, both onsite and offsite.
A brief discussion of the pro-visions for transmitt'ing information and data to a central assessment /
measurement point is also needed.
3.
Evacuation routes and the criteria for using alternate assembly locations shoulo be cescribed in the plan to include showing evacuation routes on
- s:ility ar.d site diagrars.
The specific concitions necessary to effect e.-acuation shotid also be presented.
4
- erscnnel at
- ecrtaoility retnods, to include segregation cf contaminated
' :'vicuals. s*:71d be ctscribed.
5.
Tne plan should specify acceptable and unacceptable levels of contamination and ac'ditional information concerning access control should be provided in the plan.
5.
Additional information concerning dosimetry is needed in the plan.
For example, the plan should provide a discussion of how personnel dosinetry will be made available and how personnel dose control results will be used with the decisior.s fcr corrective / repair or life saving activities.
- Also, the plan should specify whole body and thyroid protectiva exposure limits, for the general public within the EPZ (see ANSI /ANS-15.16, section 3.5).
7.
The plan shculd describe the contents of initial and followup emergency nessages alorg with a means to verify the messages have been received by offsite support organizations.
3
~
Section 3.8, Emergency Facilities and Equipment 1.
The plan should describe the criteria that would be used to ev'aluate whether an'al~ ternate location for the emergency support center should be chosen.
o 2.
More information describing the emergency support center should be provided in the plan; for example, the description should include information such as functions, capabilities, etc.
3.
The plan should remove inconsistencies between the body of the plan and the appendicies as they concern the types of radiological monitoring equipment available, e.g., the body of the plan indicates 4 GM detectors, but Appendix S2 and S3 do not agree.
In addition, clarification as to the types of monitoring and sampling equipment and their location, to be used for accident assessments should be included in the plan.
4.
Althcugh the plan indicates the location of an alternate decontamination area it fails to identify the location of the primary decontamination area.
In addition, the methods for handling contaiminated individuals should be described.
5.
The plan should provide assurance that qualified medical personnel will be available to handle contaminated persons.
Further, the plan should include letters of agreement with supporting medical fLcilities that describe their responsibilities during an emergency.
6.
Eecause the plan indicates an emergency class of " Site Area Emergency,"
- te clar should describe the provisions for back0p communications.
Sectir 2.9, Recovery 1.
The plan should describe the specific criteria used to determine whether down-grading of an emergency class is warranted.
2.
The plan should specify that recovery procedure (s) will be written and approved as needed.
Sectior 3.10, Maintaining Emergency Preparedness 1.
The plan should provide additional information concerning the programs to train and periodically retrain onsite personnel for participation in the emergency plan and to give specified training to onsite and offsite per-~
sonnel who have specific emergency assignments.
4
~
r r
i.
2.
-The plan should indicate that timely incorporation of observer / participant cocrnents, resulting from drills and exercises, will be accomplished.
More inforniatlod conce' ning the review and update process for the emergency 3.
r plan should be provided.
4.
Provisions for periodic evaluation of the operational readiness of communications with offsite groups should be described.
5.
The plan should provide for periodic inventory of emergency equipment and supplies.
O 4
O e
4 d
e 5
_ _ _ _ _ -- _ - _. _ -