IR 05000123/1993001
| ML20034E842 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | University of Missouri-Rolla |
| Issue date: | 02/19/1993 |
| From: | Cox C, Mccormickbarge NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20034E841 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-123-93-01, 50-123-93-1, NUDOCS 9303020009 | |
| Download: ML20034E842 (5) | |
Text
L
...
-
.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION III
,
Report No. 50-123/93001(DRSS)
i Docket No. 50-123 License No. R-79 Licensee: University of Missouri-Rolla
!
School of Mines and Metallurgy Rolla, MO 65401 Facility Name:
Rolla Nuclear Reactor
,
Inspection At: Nuclear Reactor Building, Rolla, M0 Inspection Conducted:
February 1-2, 1993 M/9M3 Inspector:
C.
ox Non-Power Reactor Inspector Date h N'/l Y
- 3.
Approved By:
J. W. McCormick-Barger ef
'
,
Emergency Preparedness and Date
Non-Power Reactor Section i
i Inspection Summary Inspection on February 1-2. 1993 (Report No. 50-123/93001(DRSS))
Areas Inspected: Routine, announced inspection to review actions on:
organization, logs, and records; review and audit functions; requalification
training; procedures; surveillance; experiments; fuel handling activities;
,
emergency planning; radiation controls; radwaste management (40750);
transportation activities (86740); and periodic and special reports (90713).
i Results:
Of the 12 areas inspected, no cited violations were identified. One non-cited violation was identified due to receiving more U-235 than authorized by the facilities license (Section 14). The facility appeared to be well-maintained. Other than the material accounting error, the fuel
.
.
conversion was very well handled and was a direct result of the efforts of the staff and Reactor Manager, j
'
l i
9303020009 930219 DR ADOCK 05000123 PDR
-
.
.
.
.._
.
.
_
f
!
,
,
!
.;
DETAILS l
l
!'
1.
Persons Contacted f
University of Missouri-Rolla
.
t
-
Dr. A. E. Bolon, Reactor Director
- D. W. Freeman, Reactor Manager
!
- R. Bono, Director, Environmental Health / Risk Management and Health l
Physicist
- Denotes those present at the Exit Meeting on February 2, 1993.
I 2.
General This inspection, which began on February 1, 1993, was conducted to examine the research reactor program at the University of
Missouri-Rolla. The facility was toured shortly after arrival.
The
general housekeeping of these facilities was very good.
.
I The facility converted to low enriched uranium (LEU) fuel in 1992.
Reactor operations continued to be mainly for student laboratory i
classes, irradiations of samples, on for operator proficiency. The
'
inspector observed two startups for engineering classes.
'
No violations or deviations were identified.
3.
Oraanization. Loos. and Records (40750)
,
The facility organization underwent several changes in 1992. The senior
-
electronic technician and lab mechanic retired and the reactor
<
maintenance engineer position was deleted. The senior electronic i
technician and lab mechanic continued to work on a part-time basis and a i
new electronic technician was hired. The elimination of the reactor
,
maintenance engineer required a Technical Specification (TS) and
Emergency Plan change which the Reactor Manager was pursuing with the
-
Project Manager.
l The reactor operator logs were reviewed for 1990-1993 and no concerns I
were identified. The logs were of sufficient detail and properly maintained.
- No violations or deviations were identified.
4.
Reviews and Audits
The Radiation Safety Committee (RSC) met on a quarterly basis and
.
reviewed appropriate issues (e.g., new experiments, NRC submittals,
!
conversion to LEU fuel documents).
Independent audits were performed on I
,
operations and health physics in 1991 and 1992 by personnel from the Missouri University Research Reactor at Columbia. The Reactor Manager
,
4 i
I
,
.-
.
-
-
-
-
-
.
.1 0-
,
-
\\
-
adequately addressed comments and issues identified by the audits in-
.l memorandums to the RSC.
!
i Review of the RSC. meeting minutes revealed that the licensee discovered a fuel element defect in an HEU fuel element in February 1992..The
Reactor Manager noticed slightly higher than normal readings on the i
reactor building continuous air monitor which indicated some minor fuel
=i defect.
Investigations identified the leaking fuel element and it was
!
replaced. The magnitude of the leak was so minor that the event was not
reportable under TS 6.5.2.
'
No violations or deviations were identified.
[
i 5.
Recualification Trainina (40750)
The requalification training program was in conformance with the
!
facility's approved requalification plan.
-j No violations or deviations were identified.
i 6.
Procedures (40750)
!
The inspector determined that the required procedures were available to
the operators and the content of selected procedure were found adequate.
Procedures were reviewed on an annual basis and-revised as required.
Most revisions involved pen and ink changes as allowed _by the facility procedures.
No violations or deviations were identified.
,
7.
Surveillance (40750)
The implementation and tracking of the surveillance program was in the i
form of incorporating TS surveillances into the appropriate checklist in
.i the SOPS based upon the required frequency. The inspector reviewed the
checklists for 1990-1993 to determine if the surveillances were
'
completed.
-l t
No violations or deviations were identified.
8.
Experiments (40750)
>
3 -
No new experiments were performed since the last inspection.
l No violations or deviations were identified.
9.
Fuel Handlina (40750)
!
!
Fuel handling at the facility was conducted to meet the TS surveillance
!
requirements and for the HEU to LEU conversion. Those activities were
!
conducted according to approved procedures. The conversion was very
well handled due to the efforts of the staff and Reactor Manager. The l
I
.
-
..
-
-
-.
-
-
-.
.
--
.
.- -
-
..
..
. -
..
conversion went so well that the Reactor Manager was requested by and~
.,
gave a presentation to the Test, Research, and Training Reactor (TRTR)
i I
community at their annual meeting in October 1992.
No violations or deviations were identified.
10.
Emeroency Plannina (40750)
l The licensee performed annual emergency drills ar, required.
Drill'
results were reviewed by the RSC.
Procedures were in place and required records were kept. The emergency kit was inventor Md at the required frequency and training requirements were met.
No violations or deviations were identified.
11.
Transoortation Activities (40750)
Transportation activities for receiving the LEU fuel were reviewed.
Radwaste was transferred to the university broad scope license for packaging and disposal.
J
,
No violations or deviations were identified.
12.
Radiation Control (40750)
The Environmental Health and Risk Management (EHRM) Department
.l administered the radiation protection program at the research reactor.
Their activities included posting and labeling, radiation and
!
contamination surveys, calibration of instruments, exposure records, training, and environmental monitoring.. A review of the records and an interview with the Director of EHRM indicated strong radiological
'
.-
control support for the reactor facility.
l No violations or deviations were identified.
13.
Radwaste Manaaement (40750)
The radwaste program continued to be as described in Report No. 50-123/90001(DRP).
No violations or deviations were identified.
l
,
l l
14.
Review of Periodic and Special Reports (90713)
The 1990 and 1991 annual reports were reviewed. No concerns were identified.
The actions from.the " Report on the Possession of Low Enriched Uranium-23E in Excess of License Limits at the University of Missouri-Rolla Reactor Facility" were reviewed by the inspector. The licensee received the LEU conversion fuel in two shipments, July 1992 and August 1992. At the time of each shipment, the licensee inspected
!
'
i l
\\
.
'
the fuel but never added the U-235 values tagether to determine if they exceeded their license limit. The excess U-235 vas later discovered while conducting an inventory in October 1992._ The error was immediately reported to the NRC. The license 'iimit was established early in the HEU-LEU conversion process, even beinre the~ final fuel
~ design was determined. That resulted in the license understating the amount of U-235 that would be in the final fuel design. The NRC and the licensee agreed that the license needed to be amended to a! low the new fuel configuration U-235 amount and the amendment was issued. The licensee also revised procedures so, that upon receipt of any new licensed material, an inventory.would be taken to prevent reoccurrence of any similar problem.
Receiving the two shipments of-LEU fuel appears to be in violation of NRC requirements by exceeding the maximum limit of U-235 at less than 20% enrichment established in License Condition 2.B.2 of Amendment No. 8 of License R-79. However, the licensee's identification and corrective -
actions satisfied the criteria in 10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C.
This is a non-cited viol'ation.
No violations or deviations were identified.
15.
Exit Meetino (30703)
The inspector met with the licensee representatives denoted in Paragraph I during and at the conclusion of the inspection on February 2, 1993. The inspector summarized the scope.and results of the inspection and discussed the likely content of this inspection report.
The licensee acknowledged the information and did not indicate that any of the information disclosed during the inspection could be considered proprietary in nature.
5