ML20044D022
| ML20044D022 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000128 |
| Issue date: | 05/07/1993 |
| From: | Reece W TEXAS A&M UNIV., COLLEGE STATION, TX |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM) |
| References | |
| 93-0148, 93-148, NUDOCS 9305170068 | |
| Download: ML20044D022 (6) | |
Text
.
4 TEXAS ENGINEERING EXPERIMENT STATION TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY COLLEGE STADON, TEXAS 77843-3575 l'
f M
J l
NUCLEAR SCIENCE CENTER 7 MaY 1993 409/845-7551 U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission 93-0148 ATTN: DOCUMENT CONTROL DESK Washington, DC 20555 Docket No: 50-128 License R-83
SUBJECT:
Licensee Reply to Program Weakness Identifications Dated April 9, 1993 (NRC INSPECTION REPORT 50-128/93-01)
Dear Sir:
The following response is submitted by the Texas A&M University, System / Texas Engineering Experiment Station (Licensee), in regards to the program weaknesses identifie,1 in the April 9,
1993 inspection report issued by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region IV Office.
Stated Weakness A.
NRC Regulatory Guide 2.6, " Emergency Planning for Research and Test Reactors" specifies that licensees should develop emergency action levels that relate directly to facility i
parameters.
The licensee's failure to establish radiological emergency classification action levels related to facility parameters which could be promptly assessed was identified as a plan weakness.
Contrary to the above, the inspectors determined that the monitors for stack particulate (Channel #1) and Stack gas (Channel #3) were at least a magnitude less than the action levels for a NOUE and at least two orders of magnitude less than the action levels for an. Alert.
i Licensee Response t
A.
The program weakness discussed above was identified by the licensee in discussions between Ms.
Martha Brown of ' the Nuclear Science Center and Mr. Larry Rickertson and Dr. Blair Spitzberger of the Region IV Office.
In this discussion, Ms.
Brown'used this weakness as an example of one of the major reasons the emergency plan was being revised at the timo of the inspection.
6 9305170068 930507 PDR ADOCK O5000128 RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT FOR MANKIND 1
C)
PDR l
Nuclear Regulatory Commission 93-0148 rage 2 If the inspectors had looked at the proposed revisions to the Emergency Plan and the Implementing Procedures they would have been aware that corrective action regrading this weakness had already been proposed in the revision.
The revised Emergency Plan and' Implementing Procedures should be ready to submit to the Region IV office by the end of the summer.
CORRECTIVE ACTION Until a
submittal of the revised emergency plan and inplementing procedures can be made, the NSC plans to retrain all of its operational staff in the new classification table (see enclosed Table I) developed for the revision.
STATED WEAKNESS Through discussions, the inspectors confirmed. that the licensee procedures do not direct the licensee to make notifications to the NRC except as required by 10CFR20 and the Technical Specifications. The licensee's f ailure to establish clear guidance in the emergency plan and the implementing procedures for emergency notifications to the NRC was identified as a program weakness.
LICENSEE RESPONSE The licensee admits to the program weakness.
CORRECTIVE ACTION The Emergency Plan and Implementing Procedures were under revision at the time of the inspection and changes have been made to the revision to make it clear to the Emergency Director when notifications are required and the time period in which they need to be completed (See enclosed Table I).,In order to facilitate these notifications additional changes were made to the NSC Emergency Plan to document the notifications and ensure the information provided is consistent with the actual events at the time of declaration of the emergency class (see enclosed NSC Form 854).
- ~
Nuclear Regulatory Commission 93-0148 Page 3 l
1 Should there be any questions regarding this reply, please contact me at (409) 845-7551.
Respectfully submi ted, C].
.Q arren D.
Reece i
Director Nuclear Science Center i
WDR/ym I
i xc:
Dr. K. R. Hall, Deputy Director Texas Engineering Experimant Station Texas A&M University a
Dr. K. L. Peddicord, Director Texas Engineering Experiment Station l'
Texas A&M University Feenan Jennings, Chairman Reactor Safety Board i
Texas A&M University i
Milton McLain, Director Office of Radiological Safety Texas A&M University i
U.
S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region IV 611 Ryan Plaza, Suite 400 i
Arlington, Tx 76011 Attn:
L.
J. Callan, Director Division of Radiological Safety and Safeguards l
1 e
i e
7 NSC Form 854 Emergency Notification 4
A.
Point of Contact 1)
Name:
2)
Title:
3)
Telephone Number:
B.
Information Given 1)
Location of Incident a)
Your Name:
b)
Name of Facility:
c)
Address:
d)
Phone Number:
j; 2)
Description of Emergency Event:
f t
i l
3)
Emergency Class:
4)
Date of Incident Initiation:
4~
5)
Time of Initiation:
j 6)
Type of Expected or Expected or Actual Release:
f
~
airborne waterborne surface spill other
.i'f 7)
Duration of Release (estimate or actual).
8)
Quantity and type of Nuclides Released (expected or actual):
r Nuclide Amount Released i
i 4
i 9)
Projected or Actual Dose Rates (circle one):
operations Boundary (confinement building):
Site Boundary.
t i
}
4
TABLE I EMERGENCY CLASSIFICATION GUIDE Incident Action Ievel Classification Fire Minor fire Operational non-specific to the reactor Event or its control systems (EPIP-IXB.1) in location where radioactive material is used or stored.
Prolonged Fire Notification of non-specific to the reactor Unusual Event
- or its control systems (EPIP-IXB.1) in a location where radioactive material is used or stored.
l Fire which could adversely Alert
- l effect the reactor or its (EPIP-IXB.1) control systems 1
Tornado Report of a tornado which Notification of could strike the facility Unusual Event
- l and adversly effect the (EPIP-IXB.2) l reactor safety systems Personnel With or without radiological Operational l
Injury complications Event (EPIP-IXB.3)
Bomb Threat Non-specific to the reactor Operational Event (EPIP-IXB.4)
With possible radiological Hotification of release implications Unusual Event
- l (EPIP-IXR.4) l l
Explosion Non-specific to the reactor Operational Event (EPIP-IXB.5)
Which might adversly affect the reactor or its safety systems Experiment Minor releases of fission Notification of Failure products Unusual Event *
(EPIP-IXB.6) i i
i J
- - - - - ~ ~ - - -
Minor releases of radioactive Notification of material Unusual Event *
(EPIP-IXB.6)
Pool Level Leakage which can be corrected Motification of Alarm by isolation of the leak or Unusual Event
- by adding makeup water (EPIP-IXB.7)
Leakage which indicates abnormal Alert
- loss at rate exceeding makeup (EPIP-IXB.7) capacity Facility Air Alarm on Channel #1 Operational Monitor Alarm (Stack Particulate)
Event (EPIP-IXB.8)
Alarm on Channel #2 Notification of (Fission Gas Monitor)
Unusual Event *
(EPIP-IXB.8)
Alarm on Channel #3 Operational (Stack Gas)
Event (EPIP-IXB.8)
Alarm on Channel #4 Operational (Building Particulate)
Event (EPIP-IXB.8)
Alarm on Channel #6 Operational (Building Gas)
Event (EPIP-IXB.8)
Declaration of this class of event recuires notification of the URC operation center in Bethesada, MD within 15 minutes of declaration.
(See NSC Form 854.)
. _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _