IR 05000186/1978006
| ML19281A389 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | University of Missouri-Columbia |
| Issue date: | 01/10/1979 |
| From: | Essig T, Grant W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19281A385 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-186-78-06, 50-186-78-6, NUDOCS 7903130149 | |
| Download: ML19281A389 (4) | |
Text
..
.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATOi1Y C02ilSSION OFFICE OF INSPZCTION AND ENFORCEMENT iCGION III Report No. 50-186/78-06 Docket No. 50-186 License Go, R-103 Licensee: University of Missouri Research Park Columbia,110 65201 Facility Na: e: Research Reactor Facility Inspection At:
Columbia, MO Inspection Conducted: Decem' - 5 and 6,1978 A' b
~^'
-
,
Inspector:
U. B. Grant
! E
!,
.
f b
<
Approved By:
T. H. Essig, Chief i O h Environmental and Special Projects Section Inspection Suutary Inspection on Decenber 5 cnd 6,1970 (F.enort "o. 50-186/73-06)
Areas Inspected: Routine, announced inspection of (1) Emergency Planning, including:
discussion of postulated incident, coordination with support agencies, emecgency alares, and drills; (2) Environmental Protection Progran; and (3) collection of samples for future comparative analyses.
The inspection involved 12 inspector-hours onsite by one 3RC inspector.
Results: No items of noncocpliance or deviations were identified.
7903130193
~
.,
i DETAILS 1.
l'ersons Contacted Principal Licensee Employees
- R.
Brugger, Ph.D., Director, p
'nreb ' ictor Facility
- D.
Alger, Ph.D., Associate Dir
- 0. Olson, Manager, Reactor Hearta r..fsics
- N. Sunderland, Assistant Radiation Safety Officer
- C. McKibben, Reactor Manager
- P. Keenan, Assistant to the Vice President for Research
- C. Thompson, Ph.3, Chairman, Reactor Advisory Comuittee S. Morris, Research Scientist D. Parks, Health Physics Technician Other Personnel J. Wren, Chief, Columbia Fire Department D. Denver, FMjor, University Police
- Denotes those present at the exit interview.
2.
Energency Plan The licensee currently bas a Research henctor Facility Energency Action Plan that is part of the facility " Standard Operating Procedures" (SOP) which specifies the response to be made in the event of certain emergencies. Specific energencies addressed are:
(1) facility evacuation, (2) reactor isolation, (3) fire, (4)
medical energencies, and (5) security. The plan contains detailed procedures to be followed by facility personnel. The administrative requirerents portion of the licensees' Technical Specifications require that written procedures shall be in effect for emergencies to the reactor or the facility which could cause significant radioactive releases, and for radiological control. The Specifications also require that copies of the procedures be available in the reactor control room and that they be reviewed and approved annually by the reactor manager. The inspector reviewed the copy of the SOP located in the control room and noted that it hac been revieued and updated in 1977. Discussions with licensee personnel determined that the S0P has been reviewed for 1978 and will be published in the near future. No cajor problems were noted during that review.
-2-
- *
s,
.
3.
Postulated Incident The licensee representative and the inspector discussed a postulated incident that night reasonably occur and reviewed it from its inception to a point where stable conditions would exist. The incident involved low water level in a beam port and the subsequent production of Ar-41 resulting in a reactor evacuation. As this incident would involve traffic and crowd control, the University police were also contacted. The procedures and action to be taken to contain the postulated incident appeared to be adequate. A drill testing the reactor evacuation / isolation procedures was hcid on October 13, 1978 (discussed further in Paragraph 6).
4.
Coordination with Support Agencies The inspector visited tne Columbia Fire Department and the University Police and discussed arrangeaents made for providing assistance in the event of an emergency.
a.
Fire Department Discussions with the Fire Chief showed that the coordination between this department and the University is ongoing and that training is provided by the campus health physics staff.
Fire department vehicles are equipped with civil defense survey instrunentation and self-contained creathing apparatus, b.
University Police Department The University Police Department representative indicated that cooperation and coordination between his departcent and the research reactor personnel have been very good.
The representative stated that plans had been written for emergencies occurring during working hours and nonworking hours. The department would be called upon to provide road blocks and crowd control during any evacuation or radiation energency.
5.
Emergency Alarns The licensee indicated that there are no automatic fire alarms in the reactor facility.
In the event of a fire, a call will be placed to the Columbia Fire Department. The fire and its-3-
'
-
s,
.
location would also be announced over the facility public address system. The reactor facility has alarns associated with the reactor isolation, facility evacuation, gas and partic-ulate air monitors, and various background radiation monitors which are located throughout the facility. The reactor isolation and facility evacuation alarms are tested as part of the nornal startup procedure. The gas and air particulate monitor alarms are tested at an established frequency.
6.
Drills A facility evacuation and reactor isolation drill was held on October 13, 1978.
Discussions with licensee personnel and a review of the drill critique, which was held following the drill, revealed that the drill was conducted as expected and in accordance with the Research Reactor Facility Emergency Action Plan.
7.
Environmental Protection The inspector discussed the environmental monitoring program with the Manager, Reactor Health Physics. The current program involves nine sampling stations for soil and vegetation and four sampling stations for water. The samples are taken twice per year and the results are reviewed by the Manager, Reactor Health Physics. The inspector reviewed monitoring results for the period 1977 through 1978 and no anomalous results or signifi-cant trends were noted.
The inspector visited all of the sampling stations and noted that they are located on all sides of the reactor facility at distances of approximately 1,500 to 5,000 feet.
8.
Collection of Samples for Future Comparative Analyses The inspector collected a liquid waste, particulate filter, and charccal adsorber samples from the licensee for subsequent comparative analyses.
the results of these analysis will be compared during a future inspection.
9.
Exit Interview The inspector met with the licensee representatives (denoted in Paragraph 1) at the conclusion of the inspecton on December 6, 1978. The purpose and scope of this inspection were summarized and its findings discussed.
-4-