IR 05000186/1978004
| ML20215J252 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | University of Missouri-Columbia |
| Issue date: | 06/30/1978 |
| From: | Dunleavy J, Hind J, Madeda T NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20215J138 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-86-421 50-186-78-04, 50-186-78-4, NUDOCS 8610240365 | |
| Download: ML20215J252 (7) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:.- , .,, e,a.m.-sema.*p.* ** **-*W .er., k
- 44 a..w , U.S. NUCLEAR FIGULATORY COWISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT '
REGION III
Re po rt No. 50-186/78-04 Docket No. 50-186 License No. R-103 Licensee: The Curators of the University of Missouri - Columbia 309 University Hall University of Missouri Columbia, Mo 65202 Facility Name: University of Missouri - Columbia Inspection At: Research Reactor Facility Site Inspection Conducted: Fby 24-26, 1978 Y q Inspe ct o rs : T. J. Madeda C b 7f Y Jq / L b.,/ i J. J. Dunleavy - Approved By: J. A. Hind. Chie P 6 3 c!7 f
' Safeguards Branch Inspect ion Sut=arv Inspection on May 24-26, 1978 (Report No. 58-156/78-04) Areas _Inepected: Routine, unannounced inspection of the appreved security plan and its implementation relative to the protection of SNM; security organi::ation; access control; alarm syc tems ; keys, o$ locks, and hardware; cor unications; surveillance; and protection g n-against radiological sabotage.
Additionally, the inspectors reviewed the licensee's action on previous inspection findings during the a$5 physical protection inspection conducted December 6-8, 1977.
The y inspect ion involved 35 inspector-hcurs onsite by two NRC inspectors.
n 4 <t e Results: Of the ten areas inspected, no apparent items of noncompliance $$@ were identified in eight a reas ; three items of noncompliance we re g identified in two areas (Access Cont rol - Paragraph 6.n and 6.b ; and o 2 Keys, Locks, and Hardware - Paragraph 8). Twe items are considered to M be inf ract ions and one item is considered to be a deficiency.
,wym- > m,7o #.n vgv omfew,gq.,,f}7g+) s_r3 o p-f 3,n..g, ,, (D O. n3 %,og. ;,; 4,p y, mmyg /i~% 4. - ., , oi; ;S ccylc3 apyg. w.ma a syam At t achment : r/ Pjggga-tg ;. m.. &;.."y,7c9(jy' R r g gj g' ; lj ,if,Qr,gygg7 7 s Nor r-o t9
. . '$ kh d *Ldi1-[Ul M Gli1I ~ .
- ~t.!T?'"/MJ CT RITI __O
ybswMMyanMia%p W m trm4 M m s.t.u.:.mg o Cg%c4 Qay MVhY M*S ' DETAILS , 1.
Persons Contacted
- Dr. R. Brugger, Director, Research Reactor Facility
- Dr.
D. Alger, Associate Director
- C. Thompson, Chairman, Reactor Advisory Committee
- P.
Lee, Director, Health Physics Service, University of Missouri - Colu=bia (UM-C) L. Walker, Shift Supervisor M. Spease, Shift Supervisor W. Meyer, Senior Reactor Operator V. Jones, Reactor Operator Trainee M. Deevers, Maj or, Police Department, UM-C B. May, Dispatcher, Police Department, UM-C J. Fry, Patrolman, Police Department, UM-C P. Elliot, Patrolman, Police Department, UM-C J. Vanderlick, Chief, Wat chman Se rvice, UM-C.
- Denotes those present at the exit interview.
2.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings (Closed) Noncompliance (50-186/77-07): FailureoftheIpiniversityWatchmanServic,to conduct surveillance rounds and record same for the Reactor Facility on numerous occasions from November 21, 1977 throug;h December 7,1977 at the frequency required by Section III, Part 1(A) (2)(C) 'of the University of Missouri - Columbia Physical Security, Plan.
Throuc,h personnel interviews of staf f members and by revieVpa.Re%**M and related records, the inspectors ascertained that surveillance rounds ;are being conducted and recorded in accordance with Security Plan co mitments.
RIII has no further questions on this item.
(Closed) Noncompliance (50-186/77-07): Failure of the licensee to provide annual recualification for the ~ University Watchman Service as required by Sect 1on IV, Part II(c)'of the University of Missouri - Columbia Physical Security Plan. The inspectors noted that all. watchmen'who conduct surveillance rounds of the Reacter Facility were requalified by the end of March,197E.
Review of associated records revealed that each wat chman so re-qualified and supervisor signed and dated the'qualificatien/ requalification' document at the time ef the requalification.
RIII has no further questions on this item.
-2-i Ithyf3T-h:;;ntin.-=h .a. =n..,r.-- . _,;;.-m.",.,.,. _-D.UI ' r. r m- - .
,.g.x w e x:.,_ j >ioa u,.. a m ,., un s-s.~.=--- . 7,J 4-w, w hm e,4ewmie.M g4134m.
- .m ..u an. m-" u
' W ; j $ 2 M i s k i y * Q 3 1? ? M.$ h W U Y Q uguun*^ M " p f (I r e - e * * - _ ' (Open) Noncompliance (50-186/77-07) , , Failure of the licensee to search all., individuals exiting the % ring a period that the' g (s a material access area ' [
I, A 4)(b) of the University of required by Section III, Part e Missouri - Columbia Physical Security Plan and 10 CFR 73.60(b).
Le inspectors concluded that adequate corrective action has not yet been taken by the licensee.
This item, therefore, re. mains open,and is considered a recurring item of nonco=pliance.
(Closed) Noncompliance (50-186/77-07): Failure of the licensee on three occasions to functionally test thei n ther'6 'a t least once every seven days as required by tection' IV, Part'II (a)(1) of the University of Missouri - Columbia Physical Security Plan and 10 CFR 73.60(d) (2).
Through per::onnel interviews and review of related records the inspectors concluded that adequate corrective action has been taken.
RIII has no further questions on this item.
(Closed) Noncompliance (50-186/77-07): Failure of the licensee to maintain th nrea [ Iin operable condition i thatthe(alarQidnot activate curing a test on December 7,1977 as required by Section IV, Part -II(A)(1) of the University of Missouri-Columbia Physical Security Plan,10 CFR 73.60(C), and 10 CFR 73.60(d)(1).
The inspectors verified through tests and by review of records that adequate corrective action has been taken on the. alarm system.
RIII has no further questions on this item.
3.
Security Plan The inspectors reviewed and evaluated the licensee's approved security plan which was submitted by letter dated September 20, 1974 and revisions submitted by letters dated March 31, 1976 and November 5, 1976.
The inspectors ascertained that there has been no change made to the physical security plan subsequent to the last security inspection.
No apparent items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
4.
Protection of SNM The inspectors determined that the SE actually possessed by the licensee is above the threshold quantities outlined in 73.l(b); therefore, the licensee must comply with the requirements not previously exec:pted by NRR related to 10 CFR 73.50, 73.60, and 73.70.
-3-
- & @ @ M:t 2 ;tti4 % G M A. M EA T
2Q,*hUl%t"Bi&TDTETEMTN$b.1 . p.s.-9, 4 y r-.- ,,,- _
E G!dNb2'.?dO"YN.di,NM WF3SE IIE.',7.T.:4.,4pil
.- . During the inspection it was determined that the licensee has
~ an approximate total of 8.8 kgs of U-235 and 14.0 grams of Pu stored in a An additional 10.5 graes of U-235 are in use e'sewnere within containment.
An 80 gra: PuBe source held under SNM License 247 is currently at the Reactor facility but is subject to relocation elsewhere on UM-C campus when needed for experimental purposes. The fuel in the reactor core or in the storage pool is irradiated to a self protection level of above 100 Rem /hr at 3 ft.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
5.
Security Organization The RIII inspectors determined that the licensee is confor=ing to coccitments stated in the apnroved security plan and applicable 10 CFR 73 requirements concerning the overall structure and functional responsibilities of the security organization.
This was determined through interviews with staff and operational personnel responsible for the implementation of the day-to-day security program.
No itets of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
6.
Access Controls a.
Evaluation of the access control systec was conducted by visual observation, personnel interviews, and physical testing.
A review of the licensee's access control procedures goventing admittance to and exit fro: the, caterial access " area M g h as conducted to determine the adequacy of the' licensee's correct *1ve action respecting the item of noncompliance which was identified in a previous inspection (50-186/77-07).
10 CFR 73.60(b) states in part: "Each individual, package, and vehicle shall be searched for concealed special nuclear caterial before exiting froc a caterial access area.
The search cay be .. carried out by a physical search or by use of equipment capable of detecting the presence of concealed special nuclear caterial."
Additionally, Section III, Part 1, A(4)(b)'of the Univorcity of Minnuri - Columbia Security Plan states in part:6@;,!p;s %AdW h
-4~ &&,C;fl' il'Z.W,i 3GQ 3.*};Tj D5';$ i u,m.,.- Am ans.~Mw a,a,.,Q r .w.--w ....a .. * ~ ~ wg o n,,,., I y ._-. . .s...y n -. m - - . - - -.
YtWi!.M, _,.,,%.. ", ^~';,L t.* ;.. d;;.eS.h a aniiW. i%.. e.,- %., @. 2. a ' nw~ p- . V uut u o T W. L' 4 s - .. 7_ _ _ _ ,, m-WA ' , _ ' Cont rary to the above, the licensee does not search each . individual before exiting from they ] )vhich is a caterial access area.
It was noted, hcuever, that since the previous inspection in December, 1977, the licensee has in most instances when utilfred' D , entry into the[Jf Q was necessary llR r g s,,yh 's, ' and/or monitored by{d;Qthe T -{ D/;:7: Tu". ' ffin tne @ yc Due to onernt nal considerations, , however,' ('Qof onlyd ' < W mL ' ..,into the ' 'is allowed and the monitoring by ; ' cay not be ', $sds.g ,, $ Therefore, this item is deemed'to be a recurring ' item or noncompliance, b.
Section III (A)(b)' of the University of Missouri - Columbia ! Security Plan states in part:[ ' > g6 FQ'Yfr
' y ~)p n?#q&my;s ' :' W; b iE WMa m8hpn pQyn,,p;4 7 y; yx mm a 4 .W;g y, - , ,,yrm :; Q p , m, 3 3 7.z .,.4, 7 >7.
, jf L .s ;
Sz, 4t o l + .% s s ,p;,pp, @4$ ',1 Gy ,g fp (,,g ..r
- eg'u
' y' O ' ',, , gi; o , .,. , g ' . , ,, ,.., - , _ - - 3: c - .. < Cont rary to the above, on May 25, 1978, atapproxjeatelv2:45 n.c.
a RIII inspector cained unauthorized access to the r m ;. Q by enterine thr$ch theh),. ' " , 't ??, -- , tne tice for the [ i _ hicn WMir at z _ T It was noted by the inspector that at the time of unauthorized entry at 1 cast. threectembers of the facility staff weie present but no one challenged the entry of the inspector.
7.
Alart System The licensee has an active. intrusion alarm systet for both the reactor ' 'a l a rn s ys t e ms a nnun c i a t e t.u b(C'artce n building and an'f ~ located in the containment building.
s .. [D inthf; ' nnd .y , hem.,telv at the University Police Dep . Ki n q,d i + ' ' 'is continuously. canned.
The 02 Mlar _ wil1 an.o incicate D' ' in the event o f C,, ~.lin the" n.'d used to " , [-- ' ' - ., n ~J e-a transtat the signal te the as would occur if an , . .J Aut ho ri ze d individual et tempted to tamper with the.
pe rsonrel continue to occupy the R 3: -L building around-the-clock seven days a week.
The G ' 1 /' building intrusion alart, the re f o re, has been placed in a code.
_S.
^- g.
. g,, y..,,. 7., .g,. - ' ,, ' ". I ' i, N f i l., ' ', b '.'if'..I l tl * i.,., ' ' , ~2=p :.t".h'h.. D. --~~-- _3 en:
,'-rw ~~R-v,gr;M.NMJ@ g'g gf,Q n..,, - --dW s meemM?3. yggg8, ""* -.4giynur. . Evaluation of the alarm systems was conducted by personnel
interviews, visual observations, and physical testing of the system.
No items of noncocpliance or deviations were identified.
8.
Keys, Locks, and Hardware The inspectors reviewed lock and key procedures, as they pertain to the licensee's security plan, by visual observation and personnel interviews.
10 CFR 73.50(c)(7) states: " Keys, locks, combinations, and related equipment shall be controlled to minimize the possibility of com-promise and promptly changed whenever there is evidence that they have been co= promised.
Upon termination of employment of any employee, keys, locks, combinations, and related equipment to which that employee had access shall be changed."
the. key Contrary to the,@above, it was noted by RIII inspectors that' whic and lock to the(
is not changed upon termination of e=ployment of any jeployee who ha( 6'who had access to the'@(ekeys access to such.
security inspection. To licens were tertinated since the last procedure exists to periodically (at least once each 12 months) changc or rotate all hard keys and locks for all access doors to vital areas.
Procedures do exist, however, and have been implemqnted in a timelv fas ion with respect to combination changes to the p iand 'tc th upon termination of an individual who 9.
Com=unications Com=unications can be established with the University Police Depart ent and k'atchman Service by means of various telephones dispersed through-out the facility. A telephone is locqted in the reactor control team.
An alternative method availabic, which cruid be used to sum on the University Police Department, is to activate anhTC Wil'WifM gm_ + 4 In addition to the telephones, there is a public JUuress system and inte rce: system which could be utilized internally to com=unicate an emergency.
The University Police Departr.ent has the capability of direct communi-cations with local, county and state law enforcement authorities.
'he Police Department Coc unications center has the capability of constant TRVa.4 communications with both police personnel and watchmen in the field.
No itens of noncompliance or deviations were identified, m ? ? ?:.YiO! [l,$. $ sc: O hb.Ti & :I i
. %.S.% N+dC.c{ggg g.{ ( _s_ .C"-nyMpt H n p,p.-g"-) - % -..
i ..,. - h 54Q##-. ham,.hi r$t,ic.n $ - - w, . 10.
Surveillance
'Ihe inspectors evaluated the surveillance system to determine if the licensee is conforming to co==ittents stated in the approved security plan.
As indicated in paragraph 2 of this renort.
through personnel interviews and by examination of, the inspectors ascertained that the University Wat chman Service is patrolling the reactor facility 'except during as requireo.
nppropuate documentation of sucn patrols is being maintained.
With respect to the Unresolved Item identified in a previous inspection report (50-186/77-07) concerning the minimum size of the armed security force'available to the facility at all times and its cocposition, NRR advised the licensee by letter dated May 12, 1978 to submit a proposed revision to the facility Security Plan (Section-III,.Part 1, (B)(2),'which would clarify this matter consistent with providing the required protection for the facility.
The licensee advised that they are currently discussing this itet with NRR.
No items of nonco=pliance or deviations were identified.
11.
Protection Acainst Radiolocical Sabotage During the inspection of access control censures and procedures, the inspectors determined that all means of access to the reactor core are adequately controlled.
Access to the reactor rabbit tubes is limited to those individuals authorized to be in the Research Reactor Facility.
The use of the rabbit tubes for exper-imentation is further limited to authorized individuals whose nanes are maintained on an access list in the reactor control room.
The actual operation of the rabbit tubes is perforced by the contrel room upon request by a duly authorized person.
12.
Exit Interview The inspectors met with the licensee representatives (Deneted in Paragraph 1) at the conclusion of the inspection on May 23, 1978.
The inspectors su=cari cd the purpose and the scope of the inspectien and the findings. There was no substantial rebuttal to the apparent itees of nonce =pliance.
The licensee representatives stated that they would take appropriate corrective action.
. - 7-E 'Q. ' c , -j , ,; j ;- l . -...f 7 -~ _.w.a. x.:; a , ,, w-- 11 - _ g[ - - - -. }}