ML17201Q549: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
Line 17: Line 17:


=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:July 27, 2017     
{{#Wiki_filter:July 27, 2017  
    
   
   
Mr. Al Queirolo, Director   
Mr. Al Queirolo, Director   
   of Reactor Operations  
   of Reactor Operations  
Massachusetts Institute of Technology Nuclear Reactor Laboratory Research Reactor  
Massachusetts Institute of Technology Nuclear Reactor Laboratory  
Research Reactor  
138 Albany Street, MS NW12-116A  
138 Albany Street, MS NW12-116A  
Cambridge, MA  02139  
Cambridge, MA  02139  
  SUBJECT: MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY - U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ROUTINE INSPECTION REPORT  
  SUBJECT: MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY - U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ROUTINE INSPECTION REPORT  
NO. 50-020/2017-201   
NO. 50-020/2017-201  
Dear Dr. Queirolo:  From April 25-27, 2017, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or Commission)  
   
Dear Dr. Queirolo:  
  From April 25-27, 2017, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or Commission)  
conducted an inspection at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Research Reactor facility.   
conducted an inspection at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Research Reactor facility.   
The enclosed report documents the inspection results, which were discussed on April 27, 2017,  
The enclosed report documents the inspection results, which were discussed on April 27, 2017,  
with you and members of your staff.  
with you and members of your staff.  
  The inspection examined activities conducted under your license as they relate to safety and compliance with Commission's rules and regulations and with the conditions of your license.  The inspector reviewed selected procedures and records, observed activities, and interviewed  
  The inspection examined activities conducted under your license as they relate to safety and compliance with Commission's rules and regulations and with the conditions of your license.  The inspector reviewed selected procedures and records, observed activities, and interviewed  
personnel.  Based on the results of this inspection, no findings of significance were identified.   
personnel.  Based on the results of this inspection, no findings of significance were identified.   
No response to this letter is required.  In accordance with Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations Section 2.390, "Public inspections, exemptions, requests for withholding," a copy of this letter, its enclosure, and your  
No response to this letter is required.  
response (if any) will be available electronically for public inspection in the NRC Public Document Room or from the NRC's document system (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS)).  ADAMS is accessible from the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html (the Public Electronic Reading Room).   
  In accordance with Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations Section 2.390, "Public inspections, exemptions, requests for withholding," a copy of this letter, its enclosure, and your  
A. Queirolo - 2 -  Should you have any questions concerning this inspection, please contact Mr. Johnny H. Eads at (301) 415-0136 or by electronic mail at Johnny.Eads@nrc.gov.  Sincerely,  /RA/   
response (if any) will be available electronica
Anthony J. Mendiola, Chief Research and Test Reactors Oversight Branch Division of Policy and Rulemaking  
lly for public inspection in the NRC Public  
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation   
Document Room or from the NRC's document system (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS)).  ADAMS is accessible from the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html (the Public Electronic Reading Room).   
Docket No. 50-020 License No. R-37   
A. Queirolo - 2 -  
  Should you have any questions concerning this inspection, please contact Mr. Johnny H. Eads at  
(301) 415-0136 or by electronic mail at  
Johnny.Eads@nrc.gov
.  Sincerely,  
  /RA/   
Anthony J. Mendiola, Chief Research and Test Reactors Oversight Branch  
Division of Policy and Rulemaking  
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation  
   
Docket No. 50-020 License No. R-37  
   
Enclosure:   
Enclosure:   
As stated  
As stated  
  cc:  See next page   
  cc:  See next page   


   ML17201Q549; *concurred via e-mail  NRC-002 OFFICE NRR/DPR/PROB* NRR/DPR/PROB/LA* NRR/DPR/PROB/BC NAME JEads NParker AMendiola DATE 7/24/17 7/21/17 7/27/17   
   ML17201Q549; *concurred via e-mail  NRC-002  
   Massachusetts Institute of Technology Docket No. 50-020  cc:   
OFFICE NRR/DPR/PROB* NRR/DPR/PROB/LA* NRR/DPR/PROB/BC NAME JEads NParker AMendiola DATE 7/24/17 7/21/17 7/27/17   
   Massachusetts Institute of Technology Docket No. 50-020  
  cc:   
City Manager  
City Manager  
City Hall  
City Hall  
Cambridge, MA  02139  
Cambridge, MA  02139  
  Department of Environmental Protection One Winter Street  
 
  Department of Environmental Protection  
One Winter Street  
Boston, MA  02108  
Boston, MA  02108  
   
   
Mr. Jack Priest, Director Radiation Control Program  Department of Public Health   
Mr. Jack Priest, Director Radiation Control Program  Department of Public Health   
529 Main Street  
529 Main Street  
Schrafft Center, Suite 1M2A  
Schrafft Center, Suite 1M2A  
Charlestown, MA  02129  Mr. John Giarrusso, Chief   
Charlestown, MA  02129  
  Mr. John Giarrusso, Chief   
Planning and Preparedness Division   
Planning and Preparedness Division   
Massachusetts Emergency Management Agency   
Massachusetts Emergency Management Agency   
400 Worcester Road   
400 Worcester Road   
Framingham, MA  01702-5399  Test, Research and Training  
 
Framingham, MA  01702-5399  
  Test, Research and Training  
 
   Reactor Newsletter  
   Reactor Newsletter  
P.O. Box 118300  
P.O. Box 118300  
University of Florida Gainesville, FL  32611-8300   
University of Florida  
Gainesville, FL  32611-8300  
   
Ms. Sarah M. Don, Reactor Superintendent  
Ms. Sarah M. Don, Reactor Superintendent  
Massachusetts Institute of Technology   
Massachusetts Institute of Technology   
Nuclear Reactor Laboratory  
Nuclear Reactor Laboratory  
Research Reactor 138 Albany Street, MS NW12-116B Cambridge, MA  02139   
Research Reactor 138 Albany Street, MS NW12-116B Cambridge, MA  02139   
  Enclosure U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION  Docket No.  50-020  
  Enclosure U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION  
   Docket No.  50-020  
 
   
   
   
   
License No.  R-37  
License No.  R-37  
   Report No.  50-020/2017-201  
   Report No.  50-020/2017-201  
   
   
   
   
Licensee:  Massachusetts Institute of Technology   
Licensee:  Massachusetts Institute of Technology  
    
Facility:  Nuclear Reactor Laboratory  
Facility:  Nuclear Reactor Laboratory  
Location:  Cambridge, Massachusetts
   
   
Location:  Cambridge, Massachusetts 
   
   
Dates:  April 25-27, 2017  
Dates:  April 25-27, 2017  
   
   
  Inspector:  Johnny Eads
  Inspector:  Johnny Eads  
   
   
Approved by:  Anthony J. Mendiola, Chief Research and Test Reactors Oversight Branch Division of Policy and Rulemaking Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation   
   EXECUTIVE SUMMARY  Massachusetts Institute of Technology Nuclear Reactor Laboratory NRC Inspection Report No. 50-020/2017-201  The primary focus of this routine, announced inspection was the onsite review of selected  
Approved by:  Anthony J. Mendiola, Chief Research and Test Reactors Oversight Branch  
Division of Policy and Rulemaking Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation  
    
   EXECUTIVE SUMMARY  
  Massachusetts Institute of Technology Nuclear Reactor Laboratory  
NRC Inspection Report No. 50-020/2017-201  
  The primary focus of this routine, announced inspection was the onsite review of selected  
aspects of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (the licensee's) Class I six megawatt  
aspects of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (the licensee's) Class I six megawatt  
research reactor safety program including:  (1) organization and staffing, (2) reactor operations, (3) operator requalification, (4) maintenance and surveillance, (5) fuel handling, (6) experiments, (7) procedures, and (8) emergency preparedness since the last U.S. Nuclear Regulatory  
research reactor safety program including:  (1) organization and staffing, (2) reactor operations, (3) operator requalification, (4) maintenance and surveillance, (5) fuel handling, (6) experiments, (7) procedures, and (8) emergency preparedness since the last U.S. Nuclear Regulatory  
Commission (NRC) inspection of these areas.  The licensee's program was acceptably directed toward the protection of public health and safety and in compliance with NRC requirements.  
Commission (NRC) inspection of these areas.  The licensee's program was acceptably directed toward the protection of public health and safety and in compliance with NRC requirements.  
  Organization and staffing  * Organizational structure and staffing were consistent with technical specification (TS) requirements.   
 
Reactor Operations   * Reactor operations were conducted in accordance with procedure and the appropriate logs were being maintained.  Operator Requalification  * Operator requalification was conducted as required by the Requalification Program and the program was being maintained up-to-date.  * Operators were receiving biennial medical examinations as required.  Maintenance and Surveillance  * The system for tracking and completing maintenance items and surveillance checks and calibrations was adequate and was being maintained as required.  * Maintenance and surveillance records, performance, and reviews satisfied TS and procedure requirements.   
  Organization and staffing  
Fuel Handling  * Fuel was being controlled as required and fuel movements were conducted in accordance with TS and procedural requirements.  Experiments  * The program for reviewing and conducting experiments satisfied procedural and TS requirements.   
  * Organizational structure and staffing were consistent with technical specification (TS)  
  - 2 -Procedures  * The procedure review, revision, control, and implementation program satisfied TS requirements.  Emergency Preparedness  * The emergency preparedness program was conducted in accordance with the Emergency Plan (E-Plan).  * Emergency response equipment was being maintained and inventoried as required.  * Emergency drills were being conducted annually as required by the E-Plan.  * Emergency preparedness training for licensed operators and personnel from various support organizations was being completed as required.   
requirements.  
   REPORT DETAILS  Summary of Facility Status  The Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT or the licensee) Nuclear Reactor Laboratory  
   
Reactor Operations
* Reactor operations were conducted in accordance with procedure and the appropriate logs  
were being maintained.  
  Operator Requalification  
  * Operator requalification was conducted as required by the Requalification Program and the program was being maintained up-to-date.  
  * Operators were receiving biennial medical examinations as required.  
  Maintenance and Surveillance  
  * The system for tracking and completing maintenance items and surveillance checks and calibrations was adequate and was being maintained as required.  
  * Maintenance and surveillance records, performance, and reviews satisfied TS and procedure requirements.  
   
Fuel Handling  
  * Fuel was being controlled as required and fuel movements were conducted in accordance with TS and procedural requirements.  
  Experiments  
  * The program for reviewing and conducting experiments satisfied procedural and TS  
requirements.   
  - 2 -Procedures  
  * The procedure review, revision, control, and implementation program satisfied TS  
requirements.  
  Emergency Preparedness  
  * The emergency preparedness program was conduc
ted in accordance with the Emergency  
Plan (E-Plan).  
  * Emergency response equipment was being maintained and inventoried as required.  
  * Emergency drills were being conducted annually as required by the E-Plan.  
  * Emergency preparedness training for licensed operators and personnel from various support organizations was being completed as required.  
    
   REPORT DETAILS  
  Summary of Facility Status  
  The Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT or the licensee) Nuclear Reactor Laboratory  
(NRL) six megawatt research and test reactor continued to be operated 24 hours a day, 7 days  
(NRL) six megawatt research and test reactor continued to be operated 24 hours a day, 7 days  
a week in support of educational experiments, research and service irradiations, and reactor  
a week in support of educational experiments, research and service irradiations, and reactor  
operator training.  During the inspection, the reactor was shutdown for maintenance.  1. Organization and Staffing a. Inspection Scope (Inspection Procedure (IP) 69006)  The inspector reviewed the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Reactor (designated as MITR-II) organization and staffing to ensure that the requirements  
operator training.  During the inspection, the reactor was shutdown for maintenance.  
  1. Organization and Staffing
  a. Inspection Scope (Inspection Procedure (IP) 69006)  
  The inspector reviewed the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Reactor (designated as MITR-II) organization and staffing to ensure that the requirements  
of technical specification (TS) 7.1, implemented through Renewed Facility  
of technical specification (TS) 7.1, implemented through Renewed Facility  
Operating License R-37, Amendment 40 issued August 13,  2015, were being  
Operating License R-37, Amendment 40 issued August 13,  2015, were being  
met regarding the following:  * Management responsibilities * Qualifications of facility operations personnel * MIT NRL Organization Chart, dated April 12, 2017 * Reactor Digital Logbook covering the period from March 2016 to present * Staffing requirements for reactor operation stated in TS 7.1.3 * "MIT Research Reactor, Nuclear Reactor Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Annual Report to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission for the Period January 1, 2016, to December 31, 2016."   b. Observations and Findings  The inspector noted that the Director of Reactor Operations continued to report to the Director of the MIT NRL, who in turn reported to the President of the  
met regarding the following:  
  * Management responsibilities  
* Qualifications of facility operations personnel  
* MIT NRL Organization Chart, dated April 12, 2017  
* Reactor Digital Logbook covering the period from March 2016 to present  
* Staffing requirements for reactor operation stated in TS 7.1.3  
* "MIT Research Reactor, Nuclear Reactor Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Annual Report to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission for  
the Period January 1, 2016, to December 31, 2016."  
b. Observations and Findings  
  The inspector noted that the Director of Reactor Operations continued to report to the Director of the MIT NRL, who in turn reported to the President of the  
university through the Vice President for Research.  This organization was  
university through the Vice President for Research.  This organization was  
consistent with that specified in the TS.  The organizational structure and the  
consistent with that specified in the TS.  The organizational structure and the  
responsibilities of the reactor staff had not changed since the last inspection.  Staffing levels remained consistent with those noted during the last inspection of  
responsibilities of the reactor staff had not changed since the last inspection.  
  Staffing levels remained consistent with those noted during the last inspection of  
the facility.  The current reactor operations organization consisted of the Director  
the facility.  The current reactor operations organization consisted of the Director  
of Reactor Operations, the Deputy Director of Reactor Operations, the Assistant  
of Reactor Operations, the Deputy Director of Reactor Operations, the Assistant  
Line 111: Line 204:
operators on duty at the MITR-II per shift).  Operations shifts were scheduled for  
operators on duty at the MITR-II per shift).  Operations shifts were scheduled for  
a period of 8 hours.  The review of the reactor (console) logbooks and associated  
a period of 8 hours.  The review of the reactor (console) logbooks and associated  
records confirmed that shift staffing during reactor operations met the minimum requirements for duty and on-call personnel specified in TS 7.1.3.  c. Conclusion  The licensee's organization and staffing were in compliance with the requirements specified in TS 7.1.  2. Reactor Operations  a. Inspection Scope (IP 69006)  To verify that the licensee was conducting reactor operations in accordance with  
records confirmed that shift staffing during reactor operations met the minimum requirements for duty and on-call personnel specified in TS 7.1.3.  
  c. Conclusion  
  The licensee's organization and staffing were in compliance with the requirements specified in TS 7.1.  
  2. Reactor Operations  
  a. Inspection Scope (IP 69006)  
  To verify that the licensee was conducting reactor operations in accordance with  
TS Sections 2 and 3 and procedural requirements, the inspector reviewed  
TS Sections 2 and 3 and procedural requirements, the inspector reviewed  
selected portions of the following:  * Reactor Digital Logbook covering the period from March 2016 to present * "MIT Research Reactor, Nuclear Reactor Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Annual Report to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission for the Period January 1, 2016, to December 31, 2016."  b. Observations and Findings  (1) Reactor Operation  The inspector observed facility activities on various occasions during the week including routine reactor operations and updating the console logs while the reactor was shutdown for maintenance.  Written procedures and  
selected portions of the following:  
  * Reactor Digital Logbook covering the period from March 2016 to present  
* "MIT Research Reactor, Nuclear Reactor Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Annual Report to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission for  
the Period January 1, 2016, to December 31, 2016."  
  b. Observations and Findings  
  (1) Reactor Operation  
  The inspector observed facility activities on various occasions during the week including routine reactor operations and updating the console logs while the reactor was shutdown for maintenance.  Written procedures and  
checklists were used for each activity as required.  It was noted that the  
checklists were used for each activity as required.  It was noted that the  
reactor operators followed the appropriate procedures, were  
reactor operators followed the appropriate procedures, were  
knowledgeable of the required actions, and professional in the conduct of  
knowledgeable of the required actions, and professional in the conduct of  
their duties.  (2) Staff Communication  During the inspection, the inspector observed reactor operator turnover  
their duties.  
  (2) Staff Communication  
  During the inspection, the inspector observed reactor operator turnover  
activities during the shift.  The status of the reactor and the facility was discussed on each occasion as required.  The oncoming personnel were briefed on the upcoming activities and scheduled events before assuming  
activities during the shift.  The status of the reactor and the facility was discussed on each occasion as required.  The oncoming personnel were briefed on the upcoming activities and scheduled events before assuming  
the operations duty.  Through direct observation and records review, the  
the operations duty.  Through direct observation and records review, the  
inspector verified that the content of turnover briefings was appropriate   
inspector verified that the content of turnover briefings was appropriate   
- 3 -  and that shift activities and plant conditions were discussed in sufficient detail.  c. Conclusion  MITR-II reactor operations, as well as turnovers and operator cognizance of  
- 3 -  and that shift activities and plant conditions were discussed in sufficient  
facility conditions during routine operations, were acceptable.  3. Operator Requalification a. Inspection Scope (IP 69003)  To verify that the licensee was complying with the requirements of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Part 55 and TS 7.2.3.3 (b) and conforming to Chapter 12, Sections 12.1 and 12.10 of the facility safety analysis  
detail.  c. Conclusion  
report, the inspector reviewed selected aspects of the following:  * Current status of operator licenses * Reactor Digital Logbook covering the period from March 2016 to present * Results of the annual written examinations completed in 2016 * Medical examination records for selected operators for the past 2 years * Procedure Manual (PM) 1.16, "Requalification and Qualification," latest revision dated February 20, 2013.  b. Observations and Findings  There were 21 individuals licensed to operate the reactor at MIT.  Of those personnel, 15 were qualified SROs and 6 were ROs.  A review of various Requalification Program records indicated that the program was maintained up-to-date and that SRO and RO licenses were current.  MITR-II operator files  
  MITR-II reactor operations, as well as turnovers and operator cognizance of  
facility conditions during routine operations, were acceptable.  
  3. Operator Requalification
  a. Inspection Scope (IP 69003)  
  To verify that the licensee was complying with the requirements of Title 10 of the  
Code of Federal Regulations
(10 CFR) Part 55 and TS 7.2.3.3 (b) and conforming to Chapter 12, Sections 12.1 and 12.10 of the facility safety analysis  
report, the inspector reviewed selected aspects of the following:  
  * Current status of operator licenses  
* Reactor Digital Logbook covering the period from March 2016 to present  
* Results of the annual written examinations completed in 2016  
* Medical examination records for selected operators for the past 2 years  
* Procedure Manual (PM) 1.16, "Requalification and Qualification," latest revision dated February 20, 2013.  
  b. Observations and Findings  
  There were 21 individuals licensed to operate the reactor at MIT.  Of those personnel, 15 were qualified SROs and 6 were ROs.  A review of various Requalification Program records indicated that the program was maintained  
up-to-date and that SRO and RO licenses were current.  MITR-II operator files  
and reactor logs also showed that all operators maintained active duty status with  
and reactor logs also showed that all operators maintained active duty status with  
the exception of one SRO who was designated as inactive by the facility.  A review of the MITR Safety Committee (MITRSC) meeting minutes and independent audit results indicated that the program was being audited annually  
the exception of one SRO who was designated as inactive by the facility.  A review of the MITR Safety Committee (MITRSC) meeting minutes and independent audit results indicated that the program was being audited annually  
as required by TS 7.2.3.3.(b).  
as required by TS 7.2.3.3.(b).  
   
   
A review of the pertinent logs and records also showed that training was being  
A review of the pertinent logs and records also showed that training was being  
Line 132: Line 254:
their review.  The inspector verified that the required reactor operations, reactivity  
their review.  The inspector verified that the required reactor operations, reactivity  
manipulations, other operations activities, and reactor supervisor activities were being completed and the appropriate records were being maintained.  The inspector also noted that all operators were receiving biennial medical  
manipulations, other operations activities, and reactor supervisor activities were being completed and the appropriate records were being maintained.  The inspector also noted that all operators were receiving biennial medical  
examinations within the time frame allowed as required by the program.     
examinations within the time frame allowed as required by the program.  
- 4 -  c. Conclusion  Operator requalification was up-to-date and being completed as required by the  
    
- 4 -  c. Conclusion  
  Operator requalification was up-to-date and being completed as required by the  
MITR-II Operator Requalification Program.  Operators were receiving biennial  
MITR-II Operator Requalification Program.  Operators were receiving biennial  
medical examinations as required.  4. Maintenance and Surveillance a. Inspection Scope (IPs 69006 and 69010)  To verify that the licensee was meeting the surveillance requirements specified in  
medical examinations as required.  
TS Section 4 and that maintenance was being conducted, the inspector reviewed selected aspects of the following:  * MITR-II Job Workbook * MITR-II Daily Operations Schedule  * Reactor Digital Logbook covering the period from March 2016 to present * "MIT Research Reactor, Nuclear Reactor Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Annual Report to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission for the Period January 1, 2016, to December 31, 2016."  b. Observations and Findings  (1) Maintenance  The inspector reviewed the system that the licensee had developed to track and complete maintenance activities.  The system was designed to  
  4. Maintenance and Surveillance
  a. Inspection Scope (IPs 69006 and 69010)  
  To verify that the licensee was meeting the surveillance requirements specified in  
TS Section 4 and that maintenance was being conducted, the inspector reviewed selected aspects of the following:  
  * MITR-II Job Workbook  
* MITR-II Daily Operations Schedule   
* Reactor Digital Logbook covering the period from March 2016 to present  
* "MIT Research Reactor, Nuclear Reactor Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Annual Report to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission for  
the Period January 1, 2016, to December 31, 2016."  
  b. Observations and Findings  
  (1) Maintenance  
  The inspector reviewed the system that the licensee had developed to track and complete maintenance activities.  The system was designed to  
ensure that all maintenance activities were planned and completed as  
ensure that all maintenance activities were planned and completed as  
scheduled, that post maintenance testing was conducted, and that the  
scheduled, that post maintenance testing was conducted, and that the  
Line 142: Line 277:
locally developed system called the "Test and Calibration Tracker" which listed nearly all the tests, checks, and calibrations that were due on a monthly basis, as well as MITR-II "Systems, Tests, and Calibrations" notebooks to document completion of the various periodic maintenance  
locally developed system called the "Test and Calibration Tracker" which listed nearly all the tests, checks, and calibrations that were due on a monthly basis, as well as MITR-II "Systems, Tests, and Calibrations" notebooks to document completion of the various periodic maintenance  
and surveillance activities.  The inspector noted that all such tasks were  
and surveillance activities.  The inspector noted that all such tasks were  
tracked through this system.  The program appeared to be effective.  (2) Surveillance  Various periodic surveillance verifications and calibration records of  
tracked through this system.  The program appeared to be effective.  
equipment, including the testing of various reactor systems, instrumentation, and auxiliary systems were reviewed by the inspector.  TS surveillance items were completed on schedule as required by TS and  
  (2) Surveillance  
  Various periodic surveillance verifications and calibration records of  
equipment, including the testing of various reactor systems,  
instrumentation, and auxiliary systems  
were reviewed by the inspector.  TS surveillance items were completed on schedule as required by TS and  
in accordance with licensee procedures.  The results of selected tests,  
in accordance with licensee procedures.  The results of selected tests,  
checks, and calibrations reviewed by the inspector were noted to be  
checks, and calibrations reviewed by the inspector were noted to be  
within the TS and procedurally prescribed parameters.   
within the TS and procedurally prescribed parameters.  
    
- 5 -   
- 5 -   
  c. Conclusion  The system for tracking and completing maintenance items and surveillance  
  c. Conclusion  
  The system for tracking and completing maintenance items and surveillance  
checks and calibrations was adequate and was being maintained as required.   
checks and calibrations was adequate and was being maintained as required.   
Maintenance and surveillance records, performance, and reviews satisfied TS  
Maintenance and surveillance records, performance, and reviews satisfied TS  
and procedure requirements.   
and procedure requirements.  
5. Fuel Handling a. Inspection Scope (IP 69009)  To ensure that the licensee was following the requirements of TSs 3.1.4, 3.1.6, 4.1.5, and 5.4, the inspector reviewed selected aspects of the following:  * Reactor Digital Logbook covering the period from March 2016 to present * Approved packets for core configurations completed in 2016 and 2017, including:  "Fuel Loading Permission" Form (form revision dated  February 20, 2013), completed for fuel element transfers in 2016 and 2017 to date  b. Observations and Findings  The inspector reviewed the fuel movement process and verified that fuel moves were conducted according to established procedure and documented on specific  
   
5. Fuel Handling
  a. Inspection Scope (IP 69009)  
  To ensure that the licensee was following the requirements of TSs 3.1.4, 3.1.6, 4.1.5, and 5.4, the inspector reviewed selected aspects of the following:  
  * Reactor Digital Logbook covering the period from March 2016 to present  
* Approved packets for core configurations completed in 2016 and 2017,  
including:  
  "Fuel Loading Permission" Form (form revision dated  February 20, 2013), completed for fuel element transfers in 2016 and 2017 to date  
  b. Observations and Findings  
  The inspector reviewed the fuel movement process and verified that fuel moves were conducted according to established procedure and documented on specific  
fuel movement sheets developed by the Reactor Engineer.  The inspector  
fuel movement sheets developed by the Reactor Engineer.  The inspector  
reviewed selected fuel movement sheets for 2016 and to date in 2017.  They had  
reviewed selected fuel movement sheets for 2016 and to date in 2017.  They had  
been developed and used for each specific core refueling as required.  c. Conclusion  Fuel was being controlled as required and fuel movements were performed in  
been developed and used for each specific core refueling as required.  
accordance with approved procedures and TS requirements.  
  c. Conclusion  
6. Experiments a. Inspection Scope (IP 69005)  To verify compliance with the licensee's procedures, TSs 6, 7.5, and 10 CFR 50.59 the inspector reviewed the following:   * Reactor Digital Logbook covering the period from March 2016 to present * Experiment Review Process documented in PM 1.10, "Experiment Review and Approval," latest revision dated February 20, 2013.  b. Observations and Findings   
  Fuel was being controlled as required and fuel movements were performed in  
accordance with approved procedures and TS requirements.  
6. Experiments
  a. Inspection Scope (IP 69005)  
  To verify compliance with the licensee's procedures, TSs 6, 7.5, and 10 CFR 50.59 the inspector reviewed the following:  
* Reactor Digital Logbook covering the period from March 2016 to present  
* Experiment Review Process documented in PM 1.10, "Experiment Review and Approval," latest revision dated February 20, 2013.  
  b. Observations and Findings  
   
The inspector reviewed the experimental review and approval process described  
The inspector reviewed the experimental review and approval process described  
in PM 1.10.  The inspector reviewed selected safety review forms and irradiation   
in PM 1.10.  The inspector reviewed selected safety review forms and irradiation   
Line 164: Line 323:
and the reviews and approvals completed.  The appropriate reviews and  
and the reviews and approvals completed.  The appropriate reviews and  
approvals had also been completed for the samples and/or materials to be  
approvals had also been completed for the samples and/or materials to be  
irradiated and the experiments were conducted under the cognizance of the reactor supervisor and in accordance with the specified requirements.  c. Conclusion  Conduct and control of experiments met the requirements of the TS and the applicable facility procedures.  7. Procedures a. Inspection Scope (IP 69008)  To verify that the licensee was meeting the requirements of TS 7.4, the  
irradiated and the experiments were conducted under the cognizance of the reactor supervisor and in accordance with the specified requirements.  
inspectors reviewed selected aspects of the following:  PM 1.4, "Review and Approval of Plans, Procedures and Facility Equipment and Changes Thereto," which included:  - PM 1.4.1, "Plan, Procedure, and Equipment Change Classification," latest revision dated February 20, 2013 - PM 1.4.2, "Class C Review and Approval," latest revision dated February 20, 2013 - PM 1.4.3, "Class B Review and Approval," latest revision dated February 20, 2013 - PM 1.4.4, "Class A Review and Approval," latest revision dated February 20, 2013 - PM 1.4.5, "Safety Review Form," latest revision dated February 20, 2013 - PM 1.4.6, "Procedure Manuals," latest revision dated February 20, 2013  
  c. Conclusion  
   PM 1.5, "Procedure Adherence and Temporary Change Method," latest revision dated February 20, 2013  b.  Observations and Findings  The inspector noted that procedures had been developed for reactor operations  
  Conduct and control of experiments met the requirements of the TS and the applicable facility procedures.  
  7. Procedures
  a. Inspection Scope (IP 69008)  
  To verify that the licensee was meeting the requirements of TS 7.4, the  
 
inspectors reviewed selected aspects of the following:  
   PM 1.4, "Review and Approval of Plans, Procedures and Facility Equipment and Changes Thereto," which included:  
  - PM 1.4.1, "Plan, Procedure, and Equipment Change Classification," latest revision dated February 20, 2013 - PM 1.4.2, "Class C Review and Approval," latest revision dated  
February 20, 2013 - PM 1.4.3, "Class B Review and Approval," latest revision dated  
February 20, 2013 - PM 1.4.4, "Class A Review and Approval," latest revision dated  
February 20, 2013 - PM 1.4.5, "Safety Review Form," latest revision dated  
February 20, 2013 - PM 1.4.6, "Procedure Manuals," latest revision dated  
February 20, 2013  
 
   PM 1.5, "Procedure Adherence and Temporary Change Method," latest revision dated February 20, 2013  
  b.  Observations and Findings  
  The inspector noted that procedures had been developed for reactor operations  
and safety as required by the TS 7.4.  The licensee's procedures were found to  
and safety as required by the TS 7.4.  The licensee's procedures were found to  
be acceptable for the current facility status and staffing level.  The inspector noted that the administrative procedure specified the responsibilities of the various positions and for the MITRSC.   
be acceptable for the current facility status and staffing level.  The inspector noted that the administrative procedure specified the responsibilities of the various positions and for the MITRSC.  
    
- 7 -  Operations procedures were typically reviewed by operators and support personnel prior to being used/implemented and were revised as needed.  The inspector noted that abnormal and emergency procedures were reviewed  
- 7 -  Operations procedures were typically reviewed by operators and support personnel prior to being used/implemented and were revised as needed.  The inspector noted that abnormal and emergency procedures were reviewed  
annually by all licensed operators as required and revised when needed.  Major  
annually by all licensed operators as required and revised when needed.  Major  
procedure revisions were reviewed and approved by the Director of Reactor  
procedure revisions were reviewed and approved by the Director of Reactor  
Operations and submitted to the MITRSC for review.  All procedure changes  
Operations and submitted to the MITRSC for review.  All procedure changes  
were routinely routed to all operators for review as well.  It was also noted that management and supervisory oversight was focused on  
were routinely routed to all operators for review as well.  
  It was also noted that management and supervisory oversight was focused on  
proper implementation and adherence to procedures.  Through observation of  
proper implementation and adherence to procedures.  Through observation of  
various activities in progress during the inspection, the inspector noted that  
various activities in progress during the inspection, the inspector noted that  
adherence to procedures was adequate.   c. Conclusion  Procedures were properly prepared and implemented in compliance with license  
adherence to procedures was adequate.  
requirements.  8. Emergency Preparedness a. Inspection Scope (IP 69011)  The inspector reviewed selected aspects to verify compliance with TS 7.2.3.d and the licensee's Emergency Plan and associated procedures of the following:  * Training records for MITR Support Personnel * Review and Critique of the 2016 Emergency Exercise conducted on August 16, 2016 * Review and Critique of the 2016 actual medical emergencies which occurred on February 13, 2016 and July 6, 2016 * PM 4.0, "MITR-II Emergency Plan and Procedures," revision dated June 20, 2013 * PM 4.4.4, "Emergency Operating Procedures"  b. Observations and Findings   
c. Conclusion  
  Procedures were properly prepared and implemented in compliance with license  
 
requirements.  
  8. Emergency Preparedness
  a. Inspection Scope (IP 69011)  
  The inspector reviewed selected aspects to verify compliance with TS 7.2.3.d and the licensee's Emergency Plan and associated procedures of the following:  
  * Training records for MITR Support Personnel  
* Review and Critique of the 2016 Emergency Exercise conducted on August 16, 2016  
* Review and Critique of the 2016 actual medical emergencies which occurred on February 13, 2016 and July 6, 2016  
* PM 4.0, "MITR-II Emergency Plan and Procedures," revision dated June 20, 2013  
* PM 4.4.4, "Emergency Operating Procedures"  
  b. Observations and Findings  
   
The inspector reviewed the Emergency Plan (EP) and implementing procedures  
The inspector reviewed the Emergency Plan (EP) and implementing procedures  
in use at the reactor and verified that the procedures were reviewed annually by all licensed operators in accordance with the Operator Requalification Program.   
in use at the reactor and verified that the procedures were reviewed annually by all licensed operators in accordance with the Operator Requalification Program.  
   
Through records reviews and interviews with facility emergency personnel (i.e.,  
Through records reviews and interviews with facility emergency personnel (i.e.,  
licensed operators or emergency responders), the inspector determined that they  
licensed operators or emergency responders), the inspector determined that they  
were knowledgeable of the proper actions to take in case of an emergency.  Training for staff members had been conducted annually as required and documented acceptably.   Emergency training for MIT Police Department personnel was required to be  
were knowledgeable of the proper actions to take in case of an emergency.  Training for staff members had been conducted annually as required and documented acceptably.  
Emergency training for MIT Police Department personnel was required to be  
conducted annually by EP Section 4.10.1.1.  The inspector reviewed the training  
conducted annually by EP Section 4.10.1.1.  The inspector reviewed the training  
records and noted that the most recent training had been completed as required.   
records and noted that the most recent training had been completed as required.   
- 8 -  The inspector verified that letters of agreement with various emergency support organizations were on file and being maintained.  Communications capabilities with support groups were acceptable and were  
- 8 -  The inspector verified that letters of agreement with various emergency support organizations were on file and being maintained.  
  Communications capabilities with support groups were acceptable and were  
verified annually through a communications check with the various organizations.   
verified annually through a communications check with the various organizations.   
Emergency call lists had been revised and updated as needed and were  
Emergency call lists had been revised and updated as needed and were  
available in various areas of the facility, including in controlled copies of the Emergency Procedures Manuals.  The inspector also verified that emergency equipment was being inventoried quarterly as required.  The inspector verified compliance with the EP requirement for annual emergency  
available in various areas of the facility, including in controlled copies of the Emergency Procedures Manuals.  The inspector also verified that emergency equipment was being inventoried quarterly as required.  
  The inspector verified compliance with the EP requirement for annual emergency  
plan drills.  The licensee met this requirement by conducting radiological emergency and medical emergency drills each year or by taking credit for an actual emergency.  Following each drill, a critique was conducted to identify  
plan drills.  The licensee met this requirement by conducting radiological emergency and medical emergency drills each year or by taking credit for an actual emergency.  Following each drill, a critique was conducted to identify  
areas of strength and weakness.  Drills and critiques were documented in writing  
areas of strength and weakness.  Drills and critiques were documented in writing  
as referenced above.  The drills appeared to be challenging and provided a good  
as referenced above.  The drills appeared to be challenging and provided a good  
indication of each organization's responsiveness and capabilities.  c. Conclusion  The licensee was maintaining acceptable emergency preparedness in  
indication of each organization's responsiveness and capabilities.  
accordance with TS and E-Plan requirements.   
  c. Conclusion  
9. Exit Interview The inspection scope and results were summarized on April 27, 2017, with members of  
  The licensee was maintaining acceptable emergency preparedness in  
accordance with TS and E-Plan requirements.  
   
9. Exit Interview
  The inspection scope and results were summarized on April 27, 2017, with members of  
licensee management.  The inspector described the areas inspected and discussed the  
licensee management.  The inspector described the areas inspected and discussed the  
preliminary inspection findings.  The licensee acknowledged the results of the inspection and did not identify as proprietary any of the material provided to or reviewed during the inspection.   
preliminary inspection findings.  The licensee acknowledged the results of the inspection and did not identify as proprietary any of the material provided to or reviewed during the inspection.   
   PARTIAL LIST OF PERSONS CONTACTED
   PARTIAL LIST OF PERSONS CONTACTED
Licensee Personnel:  J. Bernard  Senior Advisor, Research Staff  
 
Licensee Personnel:  
  J. Bernard  Senior Advisor, Research Staff  
S. Don  Superintendent Operations  
S. Don  Superintendent Operations  
J. Foster  Deputy Director of Reactor Operations  
J. Foster  Deputy Director of Reactor Operations  
Line 204: Line 404:
A. Queirolo  Director of Reactor Operations  
A. Queirolo  Director of Reactor Operations  
S. Tucker  Quality Assurance Supervisor  
S. Tucker  Quality Assurance Supervisor  
   INSPECTION PROCEDURES USED IP 69003 Class 1 Research and Test Reactor Operator Licenses, Requalification, and Medical Examinations IP 69005 Class 1 Research and Test Reactor Experiments IP 69006 Class 1 Research and Test Reactors Organization and Operations and Maintenance Activities IP 69008 Class 1 Procedures  
 
   INSPECTION PROCEDURES USED
  IP 69003 Class 1 Research and Test Reactor Operator Licenses, Requalification, and Medical Examinations IP 69005 Class 1 Research and Test Reactor Experiments IP 69006 Class 1 Research and Test Reactors Organization and Operations and  
Maintenance Activities IP 69008 Class 1 Procedures  
IP 69009 Class 1 Research and Test Reactor Fuel Movement  
IP 69009 Class 1 Research and Test Reactor Fuel Movement  
IP 69010 Class 1 Research and Test Reactor Surveillance IP 69011 Class 1 Research and Test Reactor Emergency Preparedness   
IP 69010 Class 1 Research and Test Reactor Surveillance IP 69011 Class 1 Research and Test Reactor Emergency Preparedness  
  ITEMS OPENED, CLOSED, AND DISCUSSED
   
  ITEMS OPENED, CLOSED, AND DISCUSSED
 
Opened:  None  
Opened:  None  
   
   
Closed:  None   
Closed:  None   
   LIST OF ACRONYMS USED
   LIST OF ACRONYMS USED
CFR  Code of Federal Regulations EP  Emergency Plan  
 
CFR  Code of Federal Regulations
EP  Emergency Plan  
IP  Inspection Procedure  
IP  Inspection Procedure  
MIT  Massachusetts Institute of Technology  
MIT  Massachusetts Institute of Technology  

Revision as of 17:40, 29 June 2018

Massachusetts Institute of Technology U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Routine Inspection Report No. 50-020/2017-201
ML17201Q549
Person / Time
Site: MIT Nuclear Research Reactor
Issue date: 07/27/2017
From: Mendiola A J
Research and Test Reactors Oversight Branch
To: Queirolo A
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)
Eads J H
References
50-020/2017-201, IR 2017201
Download: ML17201Q549 (17)


See also: IR 05000020/2017201

Text

July 27, 2017

Mr. Al Queirolo, Director

of Reactor Operations

Massachusetts Institute of Technology Nuclear Reactor Laboratory

Research Reactor

138 Albany Street, MS NW12-116A

Cambridge, MA 02139

SUBJECT: MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY - U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ROUTINE INSPECTION REPORT

NO. 50-020/2017-201

Dear Dr. Queirolo:

From April 25-27, 2017, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or Commission)

conducted an inspection at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Research Reactor facility.

The enclosed report documents the inspection results, which were discussed on April 27, 2017,

with you and members of your staff.

The inspection examined activities conducted under your license as they relate to safety and compliance with Commission's rules and regulations and with the conditions of your license. The inspector reviewed selected procedures and records, observed activities, and interviewed

personnel. Based on the results of this inspection, no findings of significance were identified.

No response to this letter is required.

In accordance with Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations Section 2.390, "Public inspections, exemptions, requests for withholding," a copy of this letter, its enclosure, and your

response (if any) will be available electronica

lly for public inspection in the NRC Public

Document Room or from the NRC's document system (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS)). ADAMS is accessible from the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html (the Public Electronic Reading Room).

A. Queirolo - 2 -

Should you have any questions concerning this inspection, please contact Mr. Johnny H. Eads at

(301) 415-0136 or by electronic mail at

Johnny.Eads@nrc.gov

. Sincerely,

/RA/

Anthony J. Mendiola, Chief Research and Test Reactors Oversight Branch

Division of Policy and Rulemaking

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Docket No.50-020 License No. R-37

Enclosure:

As stated

cc: See next page

ML17201Q549; *concurred via e-mail NRC-002

OFFICE NRR/DPR/PROB* NRR/DPR/PROB/LA* NRR/DPR/PROB/BC NAME JEads NParker AMendiola DATE 7/24/17 7/21/17 7/27/17

Massachusetts Institute of Technology Docket No.50-020

cc:

City Manager

City Hall

Cambridge, MA 02139

Department of Environmental Protection

One Winter Street

Boston, MA 02108

Mr. Jack Priest, Director Radiation Control Program Department of Public Health

529 Main Street

Schrafft Center, Suite 1M2A

Charlestown, MA 02129

Mr. John Giarrusso, Chief

Planning and Preparedness Division

Massachusetts Emergency Management Agency

400 Worcester Road

Framingham, MA 01702-5399

Test, Research and Training

Reactor Newsletter

P.O. Box 118300

University of Florida

Gainesville, FL 32611-8300

Ms. Sarah M. Don, Reactor Superintendent

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Nuclear Reactor Laboratory

Research Reactor 138 Albany Street, MS NW12-116B Cambridge, MA 02139

Enclosure U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION

Docket No.50-020

License No. R-37

Report No. 50-020/2017-201

Licensee: Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Facility: Nuclear Reactor Laboratory

Location: Cambridge, Massachusetts

Dates: April 25-27, 2017

Inspector: Johnny Eads

Approved by: Anthony J. Mendiola, Chief Research and Test Reactors Oversight Branch

Division of Policy and Rulemaking Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Massachusetts Institute of Technology Nuclear Reactor Laboratory

NRC Inspection Report No. 50-020/2017-201

The primary focus of this routine, announced inspection was the onsite review of selected

aspects of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (the licensee's) Class I six megawatt

research reactor safety program including: (1) organization and staffing, (2) reactor operations, (3) operator requalification, (4) maintenance and surveillance, (5) fuel handling, (6) experiments, (7) procedures, and (8) emergency preparedness since the last U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC) inspection of these areas. The licensee's program was acceptably directed toward the protection of public health and safety and in compliance with NRC requirements.

Organization and staffing

  • Organizational structure and staffing were consistent with technical specification (TS)

requirements.

Reactor Operations

  • Reactor operations were conducted in accordance with procedure and the appropriate logs

were being maintained.

Operator Requalification

  • Operator requalification was conducted as required by the Requalification Program and the program was being maintained up-to-date.
  • Operators were receiving biennial medical examinations as required.

Maintenance and Surveillance

  • The system for tracking and completing maintenance items and surveillance checks and calibrations was adequate and was being maintained as required.
  • Maintenance and surveillance records, performance, and reviews satisfied TS and procedure requirements.

Fuel Handling

  • Fuel was being controlled as required and fuel movements were conducted in accordance with TS and procedural requirements.

Experiments

  • The program for reviewing and conducting experiments satisfied procedural and TS

requirements.

- 2 -Procedures

  • The procedure review, revision, control, and implementation program satisfied TS

requirements.

Emergency Preparedness

ted in accordance with the Emergency

Plan (E-Plan).

  • Emergency response equipment was being maintained and inventoried as required.
  • Emergency drills were being conducted annually as required by the E-Plan.
  • Emergency preparedness training for licensed operators and personnel from various support organizations was being completed as required.

REPORT DETAILS

Summary of Facility Status

The Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT or the licensee) Nuclear Reactor Laboratory

(NRL) six megawatt research and test reactor continued to be operated 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> a day, 7 days

a week in support of educational experiments, research and service irradiations, and reactor

operator training. During the inspection, the reactor was shutdown for maintenance.

1. Organization and Staffing

a. Inspection Scope (Inspection Procedure (IP) 69006)

The inspector reviewed the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Reactor (designated as MITR-II) organization and staffing to ensure that the requirements

of technical specification (TS) 7.1, implemented through Renewed Facility

Operating License R-37, Amendment 40 issued August 13, 2015, were being

met regarding the following:

  • Management responsibilities
  • Qualifications of facility operations personnel
  • MIT NRL Organization Chart, dated April 12, 2017
  • Reactor Digital Logbook covering the period from March 2016 to present
  • Staffing requirements for reactor operation stated in TS 7.1.3
  • "MIT Research Reactor, Nuclear Reactor Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Annual Report to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission for

the Period January 1, 2016, to December 31, 2016."

b. Observations and Findings

The inspector noted that the Director of Reactor Operations continued to report to the Director of the MIT NRL, who in turn reported to the President of the

university through the Vice President for Research. This organization was

consistent with that specified in the TS. The organizational structure and the

responsibilities of the reactor staff had not changed since the last inspection.

Staffing levels remained consistent with those noted during the last inspection of

the facility. The current reactor operations organization consisted of the Director

of Reactor Operations, the Deputy Director of Reactor Operations, the Assistant

Director of Operations, the Superintendent of Operations, the Training

Coordinator, a Quality Assurance Supervisor, and various reactor supervisors, and reactor operators (ROs). The Deputy Director of Reactor Operations, the Assistant Director of Reactor Operations, the Superintendent of Operations, the

Quality Assurance Supervisor, the Training Coordinator, and the majority of the

reactor supervisors were licensed senior reactor operators (SROs). In addition to

the operations staff, there were various support groups, including a research staff, a research development group, a reactor engineering staff, maintenance personnel, and a reactor radiation protection group. Through a review of reactor

- 2 - operations logs for the period from March 2016 through the present, and through interviews with operations personnel, the inspector determined that the licensee normally operated 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> a day with three crews and no shift rotation. Each

operating crew was staffed with various personnel (with at least two licensed

operators on duty at the MITR-II per shift). Operations shifts were scheduled for

a period of 8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br />. The review of the reactor (console) logbooks and associated

records confirmed that shift staffing during reactor operations met the minimum requirements for duty and on-call personnel specified in TS 7.1.3.

c. Conclusion

The licensee's organization and staffing were in compliance with the requirements specified in TS 7.1.

2. Reactor Operations

a. Inspection Scope (IP 69006)

To verify that the licensee was conducting reactor operations in accordance with

TS Sections 2 and 3 and procedural requirements, the inspector reviewed

selected portions of the following:

  • Reactor Digital Logbook covering the period from March 2016 to present
  • "MIT Research Reactor, Nuclear Reactor Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Annual Report to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission for

the Period January 1, 2016, to December 31, 2016."

b. Observations and Findings

(1) Reactor Operation

The inspector observed facility activities on various occasions during the week including routine reactor operations and updating the console logs while the reactor was shutdown for maintenance. Written procedures and

checklists were used for each activity as required. It was noted that the

reactor operators followed the appropriate procedures, were

knowledgeable of the required actions, and professional in the conduct of

their duties.

(2) Staff Communication

During the inspection, the inspector observed reactor operator turnover

activities during the shift. The status of the reactor and the facility was discussed on each occasion as required. The oncoming personnel were briefed on the upcoming activities and scheduled events before assuming

the operations duty. Through direct observation and records review, the

inspector verified that the content of turnover briefings was appropriate

- 3 - and that shift activities and plant conditions were discussed in sufficient

detail. c. Conclusion

MITR-II reactor operations, as well as turnovers and operator cognizance of

facility conditions during routine operations, were acceptable.

3. Operator Requalification

a. Inspection Scope (IP 69003)

To verify that the licensee was complying with the requirements of Title 10 of the

Code of Federal Regulations

(10 CFR) Part 55 and TS 7.2.3.3 (b) and conforming to Chapter 12, Sections 12.1 and 12.10 of the facility safety analysis

report, the inspector reviewed selected aspects of the following:

  • Current status of operator licenses
  • Reactor Digital Logbook covering the period from March 2016 to present
  • Results of the annual written examinations completed in 2016
  • Medical examination records for selected operators for the past 2 years
  • Procedure Manual (PM) 1.16, "Requalification and Qualification," latest revision dated February 20, 2013.

b. Observations and Findings

There were 21 individuals licensed to operate the reactor at MIT. Of those personnel, 15 were qualified SROs and 6 were ROs. A review of various Requalification Program records indicated that the program was maintained

up-to-date and that SRO and RO licenses were current. MITR-II operator files

and reactor logs also showed that all operators maintained active duty status with

the exception of one SRO who was designated as inactive by the facility. A review of the MITR Safety Committee (MITRSC) meeting minutes and independent audit results indicated that the program was being audited annually

as required by TS 7.2.3.3.(b).

A review of the pertinent logs and records also showed that training was being

conducted in accordance with the licensee's requalification and training program. A series of lectures were given to operators during the 2 year training and requalification cycle. Information regarding facility changes, procedure changes, and other relevant information was routinely routed to all licensed operators for

their review. The inspector verified that the required reactor operations, reactivity

manipulations, other operations activities, and reactor supervisor activities were being completed and the appropriate records were being maintained. The inspector also noted that all operators were receiving biennial medical

examinations within the time frame allowed as required by the program.

- 4 - c. Conclusion

Operator requalification was up-to-date and being completed as required by the

MITR-II Operator Requalification Program. Operators were receiving biennial

medical examinations as required.

4. Maintenance and Surveillance

a. Inspection Scope (IPs 69006 and 69010)

To verify that the licensee was meeting the surveillance requirements specified in

TS Section 4 and that maintenance was being conducted, the inspector reviewed selected aspects of the following:

  • MITR-II Job Workbook
  • MITR-II Daily Operations Schedule
  • Reactor Digital Logbook covering the period from March 2016 to present
  • "MIT Research Reactor, Nuclear Reactor Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Annual Report to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission for

the Period January 1, 2016, to December 31, 2016."

b. Observations and Findings

(1) Maintenance

The inspector reviewed the system that the licensee had developed to track and complete maintenance activities. The system was designed to

ensure that all maintenance activities were planned and completed as

scheduled, that post maintenance testing was conducted, and that the

entire process was documented appropriately. The licensee used a

locally developed system called the "Test and Calibration Tracker" which listed nearly all the tests, checks, and calibrations that were due on a monthly basis, as well as MITR-II "Systems, Tests, and Calibrations" notebooks to document completion of the various periodic maintenance

and surveillance activities. The inspector noted that all such tasks were

tracked through this system. The program appeared to be effective.

(2) Surveillance

Various periodic surveillance verifications and calibration records of

equipment, including the testing of various reactor systems,

instrumentation, and auxiliary systems

were reviewed by the inspector. TS surveillance items were completed on schedule as required by TS and

in accordance with licensee procedures. The results of selected tests,

checks, and calibrations reviewed by the inspector were noted to be

within the TS and procedurally prescribed parameters.

- 5 -

c. Conclusion

The system for tracking and completing maintenance items and surveillance

checks and calibrations was adequate and was being maintained as required.

Maintenance and surveillance records, performance, and reviews satisfied TS

and procedure requirements.

5. Fuel Handling

a. Inspection Scope (IP 69009)

To ensure that the licensee was following the requirements of TSs 3.1.4, 3.1.6, 4.1.5, and 5.4, the inspector reviewed selected aspects of the following:

  • Reactor Digital Logbook covering the period from March 2016 to present
  • Approved packets for core configurations completed in 2016 and 2017,

including:

"Fuel Loading Permission" Form (form revision dated February 20, 2013), completed for fuel element transfers in 2016 and 2017 to date

b. Observations and Findings

The inspector reviewed the fuel movement process and verified that fuel moves were conducted according to established procedure and documented on specific

fuel movement sheets developed by the Reactor Engineer. The inspector

reviewed selected fuel movement sheets for 2016 and to date in 2017. They had

been developed and used for each specific core refueling as required.

c. Conclusion

Fuel was being controlled as required and fuel movements were performed in

accordance with approved procedures and TS requirements.

6. Experiments

a. Inspection Scope (IP 69005)

To verify compliance with the licensee's procedures, TSs 6, 7.5, and 10 CFR 50.59 the inspector reviewed the following:

  • Reactor Digital Logbook covering the period from March 2016 to present
  • Experiment Review Process documented in PM 1.10, "Experiment Review and Approval," latest revision dated February 20, 2013.

b. Observations and Findings

The inspector reviewed the experimental review and approval process described

in PM 1.10. The inspector reviewed selected safety review forms and irradiation

- 6 - request forms for experiments that were currently active. The experimental facilities and/or equipment had been evaluated in accordance with TS requirements and the associated data sheets indicated that the experiments

would be within the specified limits. The analysis for each had been performed

and the reviews and approvals completed. The appropriate reviews and

approvals had also been completed for the samples and/or materials to be

irradiated and the experiments were conducted under the cognizance of the reactor supervisor and in accordance with the specified requirements.

c. Conclusion

Conduct and control of experiments met the requirements of the TS and the applicable facility procedures.

7. Procedures

a. Inspection Scope (IP 69008)

To verify that the licensee was meeting the requirements of TS 7.4, the

inspectors reviewed selected aspects of the following:

PM 1.4, "Review and Approval of Plans, Procedures and Facility Equipment and Changes Thereto," which included:

- PM 1.4.1, "Plan, Procedure, and Equipment Change Classification," latest revision dated February 20, 2013 - PM 1.4.2, "Class C Review and Approval," latest revision dated

February 20, 2013 - PM 1.4.3, "Class B Review and Approval," latest revision dated

February 20, 2013 - PM 1.4.4, "Class A Review and Approval," latest revision dated

February 20, 2013 - PM 1.4.5, "Safety Review Form," latest revision dated

February 20, 2013 - PM 1.4.6, "Procedure Manuals," latest revision dated

February 20, 2013

PM 1.5, "Procedure Adherence and Temporary Change Method," latest revision dated February 20, 2013

b. Observations and Findings

The inspector noted that procedures had been developed for reactor operations

and safety as required by the TS 7.4. The licensee's procedures were found to

be acceptable for the current facility status and staffing level. The inspector noted that the administrative procedure specified the responsibilities of the various positions and for the MITRSC.

- 7 - Operations procedures were typically reviewed by operators and support personnel prior to being used/implemented and were revised as needed. The inspector noted that abnormal and emergency procedures were reviewed

annually by all licensed operators as required and revised when needed. Major

procedure revisions were reviewed and approved by the Director of Reactor

Operations and submitted to the MITRSC for review. All procedure changes

were routinely routed to all operators for review as well.

It was also noted that management and supervisory oversight was focused on

proper implementation and adherence to procedures. Through observation of

various activities in progress during the inspection, the inspector noted that

adherence to procedures was adequate.

c. Conclusion

Procedures were properly prepared and implemented in compliance with license

requirements.

8. Emergency Preparedness

a. Inspection Scope (IP 69011)

The inspector reviewed selected aspects to verify compliance with TS 7.2.3.d and the licensee's Emergency Plan and associated procedures of the following:

  • Training records for MITR Support Personnel
  • Review and Critique of the 2016 Emergency Exercise conducted on August 16, 2016
  • Review and Critique of the 2016 actual medical emergencies which occurred on February 13, 2016 and July 6, 2016
  • PM 4.4.4, "Emergency Operating Procedures"

b. Observations and Findings

The inspector reviewed the Emergency Plan (EP) and implementing procedures

in use at the reactor and verified that the procedures were reviewed annually by all licensed operators in accordance with the Operator Requalification Program.

Through records reviews and interviews with facility emergency personnel (i.e.,

licensed operators or emergency responders), the inspector determined that they

were knowledgeable of the proper actions to take in case of an emergency. Training for staff members had been conducted annually as required and documented acceptably.

Emergency training for MIT Police Department personnel was required to be

conducted annually by EP Section 4.10.1.1. The inspector reviewed the training

records and noted that the most recent training had been completed as required.

- 8 - The inspector verified that letters of agreement with various emergency support organizations were on file and being maintained.

Communications capabilities with support groups were acceptable and were

verified annually through a communications check with the various organizations.

Emergency call lists had been revised and updated as needed and were

available in various areas of the facility, including in controlled copies of the Emergency Procedures Manuals. The inspector also verified that emergency equipment was being inventoried quarterly as required.

The inspector verified compliance with the EP requirement for annual emergency

plan drills. The licensee met this requirement by conducting radiological emergency and medical emergency drills each year or by taking credit for an actual emergency. Following each drill, a critique was conducted to identify

areas of strength and weakness. Drills and critiques were documented in writing

as referenced above. The drills appeared to be challenging and provided a good

indication of each organization's responsiveness and capabilities.

c. Conclusion

The licensee was maintaining acceptable emergency preparedness in

accordance with TS and E-Plan requirements.

9. Exit Interview

The inspection scope and results were summarized on April 27, 2017, with members of

licensee management. The inspector described the areas inspected and discussed the

preliminary inspection findings. The licensee acknowledged the results of the inspection and did not identify as proprietary any of the material provided to or reviewed during the inspection.

PARTIAL LIST OF PERSONS CONTACTED

Licensee Personnel:

J. Bernard Senior Advisor, Research Staff

S. Don Superintendent Operations

J. Foster Deputy Director of Reactor Operations

E. Lau Assistant Director of Reactor Operations W. McCarthy Reactor Radiation Protection Officer and Deputy Director, MIT Environment, Health, and Safety Office

A. Queirolo Director of Reactor Operations

S. Tucker Quality Assurance Supervisor

INSPECTION PROCEDURES USED

IP 69003 Class 1 Research and Test Reactor Operator Licenses, Requalification, and Medical Examinations IP 69005 Class 1 Research and Test Reactor Experiments IP 69006 Class 1 Research and Test Reactors Organization and Operations and

Maintenance Activities IP 69008 Class 1 Procedures

IP 69009 Class 1 Research and Test Reactor Fuel Movement

IP 69010 Class 1 Research and Test Reactor Surveillance IP 69011 Class 1 Research and Test Reactor Emergency Preparedness

ITEMS OPENED, CLOSED, AND DISCUSSED

Opened: None

Closed: None

LIST OF ACRONYMS USED

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

EP Emergency Plan

IP Inspection Procedure

MIT Massachusetts Institute of Technology

MITR Massachusetts Institute of Technology Reactor

MITRSC Massachusetts Institute of Technology Reactor Safety Committee NRC U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission NRL Nuclear Reactor Laboratory

PM Procedure Manual

RO Reactor Operator

SRO Senior Reactor Operator TS Technical Specification