IR 05000020/1988003

Insp Rept 50-020/88-03 on 880718-20.No Violations Noted. Major Areas Inspected:Facility Organization,Operations, Notification,Communication,Equipment & Training

ML20153F857
Person / Time
Site:	MIT Nuclear Research Reactor
Issue date:	08/29/1988
From:	Craig Gordon, Lazarus W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:
Shared Package
ML20153F852	List: IR 05000020/1988003 ML20153F848
References
50-020-88-03, 50-20-88-3, NUDOCS 8809070515
Download: ML20153F857 (5)

Text

. . ,

e

.

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

REGION I

Repor1 No. 50-20/8e-03 Docket N License No. R - 37 Priority C Category F Licensee: Massachusetts Institute of Technology MIT Research Reactor 38 Albany Street Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139 Facility Name: MIT Research Reactor (MITR - II)

Inspection Conducted: July 18-20, 1988 Inspector: _

N'~ Af IK G. Z. Ordon, ' date Emergency Preparedness Specialist Approved by: m 'L P!,24[N W. J. Lakarus, Chief / date Emergency Preparedness Section

.

.

Inspection Summary: Inspection on July 18-20, 1988 (Report No. 50-20/88 03) l

.

Areas Inspected: _ Routine, announced emergency preparedness inspection l

.

conducted by one NRC Region I based inspector of the facility organization, operations, notification, communication, equipment, and training.

i Results: No violations were identified. The Emergency Plan and Procedures were f6und to be implemented in a manner to adequately protect public health and safet '/0515 800830 PDR Q

ADOCK 05000020 PNU

'

.

-e e,,- , . , , - - ~ . - . - - , , - - -

- _ -

,--,,_-n y e,_ , -

. .

,

.

.

DETAILS Persons Contacted

• J. A. Bernard, Director, Reactor Operations G. R. Elderd, Sergeant, Campus Security

• R. Hopkins Assistant Director, Reactor Operations

• K.S.Kwok,PlantSuperintendent E. F. Mallove, Assistant Director, News Office

• F. F. McWilliams, Radiation Protection Officer J. P. Reilly, Radiation Protection Officer

• Denotes attendance at the exit meetin .0 Massachusetts Institute of Technology Reactor (MITR-II) Emergency Plan The inspector reviewed the MITR-II Emergency Plan for the Cambridge, Massachusetts site. The Plant Superintendent is responsible for updating and implementing the Plan and administering emergency preparedness program functions. The Plan was submitted to the NRC in August 1982, in response to changes in Emergency Planning requirements for test and research reactors. The Plan was developed in accordance with ANSI /ANS NUREG-0849, 15.16,d Review Plan for the Review and Evaluation ofdraft II, date

"Standar Emergency Plans for Research and Test Reactors". The Plan appears to meet the NUREG guidance with regard to information on emergency organization and responsibilities, radiological assessment, emergency action levels, designated emergency equipment and facilities, and training. Formal NRC Plan approval was issued in 198 Controlled distribution is limited to Plan holders within the reactor building. NRC and other support groups are provided with "unofficial" copies only. Controlled distribution of the Emergency Plan to the NRC (2 copies) and other groups who may be involved in emergency response including updates and revisions should be provided (50-20/88-03-01).

A descriptior, of different accidents and corresponding emergency action levels for each classification are provided in the areas of fuel damage, radiological effluents natural phenomena, fire, and security threa There are three (3) "im lementing procedures for corrective and protective actions: A tion IX- General Emergency" Action and Action 2Y- Event / Alert / Site Area $mergency"lY- General

.

Emergency",IX Procedures and 1Y for General Emergencies state that integrated offsite doses could exceed 1 Rem whole body and 5 Rem thyroid to offsite populations resulting from a 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> exposure and that protective action In reviewing the recommendations Plan's definition oftothe local authorities Emergen may be Zone y Planning necessary).

(EPZ however, the inspector noted that during desi n basis accidents, offsite doses are not expected to exceed 60 mR who e body or 1 Rem thyroid. In this regard, the Plan and Procedures are not consistent (50-20 88 03-02).

i

!

l

. l

'

.

'

Further revicw of Procedures IX and lY indicate that they contain complex narratives of information which interrelate key response actions ad do not outline in an orderly manner specific tasks either to be pe* formed by organization the Emergency members (50-23 /88-03-03). Director or delegated to other response 3.0 Facilities And Equipment The Control Room emergency and facilitie response EmergencyT1e Su) inspector port Center (ESC)d these as well asare the desig toure the assembl maintaine areas anddetection Radiation noted that facilities devices appear to be for emergency usewell are available from the reactor health physics group. Inventories of emergency equipment are performed on a regular basis. The inspector observed lockers in the Control Room and Reactor Building containing protective clothing, supplies for contamination control respiratory protection equip 3ent, radiation survey meters, decontamlnation supplies, and other necessary safety eq ipment used for emergency response and determined that sufficient equ pment is generally available and that inventories were up to date. Th inspector noted that self-reading dosimeters provided in Control Room lockers are capable of detecting exposures in the range of 0-5 Rem only, while lower range SRD's were unavailable (50-20/88-03-04).

A tour of the Control Room identified a licensee change in the method for determining emergency classificati >ns. In order to classify emergencies due to operational problems, the licensee proviet 4 men gy action levels and resultant classifications based upon increases in readouts from the auxiliary core purge monitor. It appears that the licensee developed these EAL's because no other symptomatic means is available to provide operators with direct monitor readings which correlate with emergency' classifications. The inspector reviewed the EAL changes and licensee s safety review and noted that the prescribed action levels are not s which, if exceeded, wil$ecific result initiating conditions in classificatio (trigger Instead, points)ls such leve are monitor readings which must be sustained over time. In the case of the Unusual Event classification, the emergency cannot be classified until elevated auxiliary core purge monitor readings continue for a period nf 2/ hours. Although the basis for selecting each action level adequately relates to MPC values, overall benefit to the licensee's emergency response program cannot be determined (50-20/88-03 05). Other emergency action levels for classification are related to measured site boundary radiation levels, offsite dose calculations based upon multiple increments of measured stack area monitors (and MPC values of I-131), or increases in the gas and particulate monitors. These EAL's are more appropriate for research reactor licensees and allow the Emergency Plan to be immediately irrplemented.

-

.

.

4.0 Notifications and Communications An incident may be reported at any time (24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />) by a caller dialing telephone extension 911 and being connected to the Campus Polic The MIT ":blic telephone communications network used for emerkencynotification by th throughout the reactor building. Portable radios are available for use by Campus Police and emergency response staff for environmental monitoring. The on-duty Shift Supervisor becomes the Emergency Director and assumes the lead role for overall direction and control of the emergenc This includes interfaces with MIT support groups, the radiation prote'5n afficer, and upper-level licensee managemen r rimary teknhones and an intercom system are located in the Control Room and Enirgency Support Center to make initial notifications to the emergency organization. Telephone numbers for NEC notification are in place at the Control Room desk. Not!' N tion messages to NRC and other groups are required to contain information about the description of the event, emergency classification, expected or actual radiation release, meteorological data dose assessment, and protectl'e action recommendations. Althoughthenotificationandcommunicationcapability is adequate, the Plan does not provide for 15 minute notification to the State of Massachusetts and City of Cambridge after declaration of an emergency (50-20-88-03-06).

5.0 Coordination,With Offsite Groups The inspector reviewed Section 4.3 of the Emergency Plan, "Organizations Responsible for MITR Emergency Response" and contacted representatives of site support groups in the hospital and medical facility,'nWs office, and Campus Police Department to determine each group s understanding of the role and responsibilities it will fulfill in response to emergency incidents in the reactor building.

! Representatives stated that full support woula be provided to emergency personnel during emergencies. The Plant Superintendent indicated that arrangements are in place for local governmental support from the City of Cambridge to coordinate and assist with most emergencies at the MIT sit Individuals also stated that thsv were familiar with basic radiological hazards associated with reactor operation and had previously attended site tours. Based upon discussions with these

! individuals, the inspector determined that adequate outside assistance i

is available to support MITR staff in dealing with emergency response activities in the reactor buildin .0 Drills and Exercises Shift supervisors and operations staff are designated for Emergency Director positioM and receive specialized emergency training from the Plant Superintendent. Classroom instruction covers a review of EAL's, corrective actions, radiological controls, communications capability, l

!

-

. ..

,,

.

. 4 and emergency implementing procedures. This training is included as part of the preparation for operator licensing examination. For requalification, licensed operators are required to review the Emergency Plan and implementing procedures annuall Qualification criteria for key emergency response personnel consists of participation in emergency drills and exercises, acting as scenario evaluators, performing Emergency Plan reviews, and helping in scenario development and planning. The inspector noted that a comprehensive exercise which simultaneously tests the major portions of the Plan is medical, security and fire drills are notconducted,butevacuation,Exercisesanddrilisarecritiqued held at least once per yea Reactor Safeguards) Committee for possible corrective action.(initiated in 1988 ,

7.0 Exit Meeting The inspector met with the licensee representatives listed in Section 1 of this report at the conclusion of the inspection and summarized the observations made during the inspectio The licensee was informed that previously identified findings were adequately addrassed and no violations were foun Licensee management acknowledged the findings and indicated that appropriate action would be considere At no time during this inspection did the inspector provide any written information to the licensee.

l l

l l

l l

l

!

l