IR 05000123/1981001
| ML19347F784 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | University of Missouri-Rolla |
| Issue date: | 04/14/1981 |
| From: | Boyd D, Ridgway K NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19347F779 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-123-81-01, 50-123-81-1, NUDOCS 8105260292 | |
| Download: ML19347F784 (7) | |
Text
I J
.
'
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 0FFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT g
REGION III
Report No. 50-123/81-01 Docket No. 50-123 License No. R-79 Licensee: The Curators of the University of Missouri-Rolla Rolla, MO 65401 Facility Name:
Rolla Research Reactor Inspection Conducted: March 16 through 20, 1981 x./ /M Inspector:
K. R. Rid f//3/f/
/I
/
Approved By: D ief Projects Section IA Inspection Summary Inspection on March 16 through 20, 1981 (Report No. 50-123/81-01)
Areas Inspected: Routine unannounced inspection of records, logs and organization; review and audit functions; requalification training; pro-cedures; surveillance and maintenance; refueling; experiments; radiation protection program; radwaste management program; security program; and followup action relative to IE Circulars and Open Inspection Items. This l
inspection involved a total of 32 inspector-hours onsite by one NRC in-l spector including 0 inspector-hours onsite during off-shifts.
Results: Of the ten areas inspected, nc items of noncompliance were
'
identified in nine areas; an apparent item of noncompliance was identified in one area.
(Failure to document licensed operator experience require-ments.)
I 65260 M M h
l
-
--.
. _ -.
I O
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted
- Dr. D. R. Edwards, Director, UMR Nuclear Reactor Facility Mr. A. E. Elliott, UMR Reactor Manager
- Mr. R. Bono, Health Physicist Mr. R. L. Jones,' Senior Reactor Operator Mr. C. Barton, Electronic Technician-Reactor Operator Ms. K. Lane, Reactor Operator Trainee Mr. D. Carter, Health Physics Technician Mr. J. Williams, Laboratory Mechanic
- Denotes those.present at the exit interview.
2.
Organization, Logs and Records The facility organization was reviewed and verified to be consistent with the Technical Specifications and/cr Hazards Summary Report. The minimum staffing requirements were verified.to be present during reactor operation, and fuel handling or refueling operations.
'
The reactor logs and records were reviewed to verify that:
Required entries were made.
a.
b.
Significant problems or incidents were documented.
The tacility was being maintained properly.
c.
d.
Records were available for inspection.
During the inspection it was noted that two Fuel Transfer Order forms did not have all the names or initials of the three persons required to be present during fuel handling. Some planned irradiations that were later cancelled have not been shown ac cancelled in the log book and appeared to be incomplete records. The licensee stated that the
,
!
above records would be corrected and future records would be completed.
The inspector also noticed during a tcur of the facility that the fire extinguishers in the building had not been inspected or weighed since 1978. The licensee has scheduled an inspection.
I No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
3.
Reviews and Audits The licensee's review and audit program records were examined by the inspector to verify that:
Reviews of facility changes, operating and mr.intenance procedures, a.
design changes, and unreviewed experiments had been conducted by a safety review committee ar, required by Technical Specifications or Hazards Summary Report.
.
-2-
- -. -
-
-
-
- -
-.
.
.
.-
-
.
F b.
That the review committee and/or subcommittees were composed of qualified members and that quorum requirements and frequency of meetings had been met.
Required safety audits had been conducted in accordance with c.
Technical Specification requirements and that any identified problems were resolved.
In reviewing the Isotopes and Reactor Safety Committee meeting minutes, the inspector noted that a quorum for conducting official business was not present at the November 12, 1980 meeting where official business regarding the use of isotopes covered by the byproduct license had been approved. The licensee stated that this business would be reviewed during the next schcduled Committee meeting. The licensee stated that the Committee would also review the reactor license renewal application
,
of November, 1979 at the next meeting. The licensee is considering changing the present Committee quorum requirement for conducting business from a two thirds majority to a simple majority as required in the license renewal application.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
4.
Requalification Training The inspector reviewed procedures, logs and training records; and in-terviewed personnel to verify that the requalification training program was being carried out in conformance with the facility's approved plan and NRC regulations. Two requalification examinations had been conducted in July, 1980.
i
!
From a review of requalification training records, it was not possible to establish that the recently licensed reactor operator had performed the reactivity changes required every six months in the licensee's Operator Requalification Program, dated February 26, 1981. The licensee stated that the operator had made several reactivity changes during the period in question, June 1980 to January 1981.
However, the documentation of these operations was not evident and the licensee had not performed a recertification of the operator after four months inactivity as required by 10 CFR 55.31(e). This is considered to l
be an item of noncompliance.
No other items of noncompliance were identified.
l 5.
Procedures The inspector reviewed the licensee's procedures to determine if pro-cedures were issued, reviewed, changed or updated and approved in-accordance with Technical Specifications and HSR requirements.
l This review also verified:
l
!
-3-
!
.
.
-
__.,, -
_
- _ _
-,
_ ~
.
That procedure content was adequate to safely operate, refuel
a.
and maintain the facility.
b.
That responsibilities were clearly defined.
That required checklists and forms were used.
c.
The procedure review indicated th'at there had been no procedure revisions or additions since March 1978. Annual reviews of pro-cedures had been conducted by reviewing two sections af procedures each quarter. This did not completely agree with statements in the preamble to the procedures which required quarterly review of pro-cedures. The licensee stated that the procedures are presently being updated to agree with statements in the licensee renewal application, dated November 1979 and that the preamble would be revised to require an annual review. The inspector also pointed out that two procedures were missing from the control room procedure book but were a cailable at the reactor. These procedures were inserted in the control room book.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
6.
Surveillance The inspector reviewed procedures, surveillance test schedules and test records and discussed the surveillance program with responsible personnel to verify:
That when necessary, procedures were available and adequate to a.
perform the tests.
b.
That tests were completed within the required time schedule.
!
The inspector noted that the Semi Annual Check List (S0P-809), had not been revised to include two equipment changes which had been made. The inspector also noted that some semi annual checks had not been included in the list, i.e. security tests, fire tests and emergency plan drills.
The licensee stated that these revisions would be included in the general procedure revisions now underway. The inspector noted that no emergency drill had been conducted during the last half of 1980. The drill is noted as a semi annual drill on the surveillance schedule and in the license renewal application but is not yet a license requirement.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
7.
Experiments The inspector verified by reviewing experiment records and other reactor logs that:
Experiments were conducted using approved procedures and under a.
approved reactor conditions.
-4-
.
b.
New experiments or changes in experiments ',ere properly reviewed
and approved.
The experiments did not involve an unreviewed safety question.
c.
d.
Experiments involving potential hazards or reactivity change were identified in procedures.
Reactivity limits were not or could not have been exceeded during e.
the experiment.
No items of noncomplinace were identified.
8.
Refueling The facility fuel handling program was reviewed by the inspector. The review included the verification of approved procedures for fuel handling and the technical adequacy of them in the areas of radiation protection, criticality safety, Technical Specification and security plan requirements. The inspector determined by records review d
discussions with personnel that fuel handling operations and startup tests were carried out in conformance to the licensee's procedures.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
9.
IE Circular Followup For the IE Circulars listed below, the inspector verified that the IE Cic_ular was received by the licensee management, that a review for applicability was performed, and that if the circular was appli-cable to the facility, appropriate corrective actions were taken or were scheduled to be taken.
IEC 79-08, Attempted Extortion - Low Enriched Uraninm a.
b.
IEC 80-02, Nuclear Power Plant Staff Work Hours IEC 80-14, Radioactive Contamination of Plant Demineralized c.
Water System and Resultant Internal Contamination of Personnel d.
IEC 81-02, Performance of NRC - Licensed Individuals while on Duty 10.
Review of Periodic and Special Reports The inspector reviewed the following :eports for timeliness of submittal and adequacy of information submitted:
Progress Report, April 1, 1979 to March 31, 1980.
11.
Radiation Protection The inspector reviewed records and interviewed personnel to determine that the surveillance requirements in the area of radiation protection had been carried out and no adverse conditions were noted. Surveillance reviewed were:
&
-5-
,
d D:ily RAM Startup Tests and Weekly Checks a.
(1) RAM Monitors annunciators, reactor runbacks and trip points (2) Beam Room, Beam Port and Thermal Column annunciators b.
Monthly-(1) Smear Tests (2) Radiation Surveys (3) Pool Water samples and analyses c.
Quarterly (1) Calibrations of portable HP Instruments (2) Calibrations of Radiation Area Monitors d.
Semi Annual (1) Source smear tests Thelicenseehadreviewedtheradiationtrg}ningprogramtodetermine if 10 CFR 19.12 requirements had been met.-
A new' video tape presenta-tion has been developed and the licensee is planning to present this probram to all night watchmen, firemen, police and dispatchers within the next three weeks.
Thelicenseedeterminedthatsmoking,Optinganddrinkingwouldnot be permitted in the reector pool area.t had established an annual review of radiation protection The licensegj procedures.-
Several byproduct license procedures had been written and reactor HP procedures are being reviewed to assure they comply with commitments in the licensea renewal application.
12.
Radioactive Effluents i
l The inspector reviewed records of gaseous, liquid and byproduct releases since the last inspection.
l l
No items of noncompliance were identified.
13.
Security Program The inspector reviewed records and interviewed personnel to determine that required security program surveillances were being conducted at I
the reactor facility.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
t l
I l
1/
IE Inspection Report No. 50-123/80-03
'
2/
Ibid
_3/
Ibid t
l-6-
,
.-. _-._..__ _ _
_
_ _
_
_
_,.
<
...
a 14.
Exit Interview The inspector met with licensee representatives (denoted in Paragraph 1)
at the conclusion of the inspection on March 20, 1981, and summarized the scope and findings of the inspection.
The following matters were discussed; a.
The item of noncompliance.
(Paragraph 4)
b.
The licensee agreed to revise the Isotopes and Reactor Safety Committee Responsibilities (Charter) to agree with statements made in the license renewal application concerning membership, quorums, and review responsibilities.
(Paragraph 3)
The licensee stated that documentation and procedure changes c.
noted in Paragraphs 2, 5 and 6 would be made.
d.
The licensee agreed to conduct semiannual emergency plan drills as presently scheduled in their surveillance program.
The licensee stated that the Isotopes and Reactor Safety e.
Committee would review and approve official business carried out during the November 1980 meeting when a quorum.was not present.
I
-