IR 05000186/1980002
| ML19323H810 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | University of Missouri-Columbia |
| Issue date: | 04/28/1980 |
| From: | Essig T, Greer R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19323H805 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-186-80-02, 50-186-80-2, NUDOCS 8006160215 | |
| Download: ML19323H810 (7) | |
Text
.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
REGION III
Report No. 50-186/80-02 Docket No. 50-186 License No. R-103 Licensee: University of Missouri Research Park Columbia, MO 65201 Facility Name: Research Reactor Facility Inspection At: Columbia, Missouri Inspection Conducted: March 26-27 and April 21, 1980 WA.
t
.
Inspector:
R. J. Greer 25 80
.
[
4/Z6 fW Approved By:
T. H. Essig, Chief Environmental and Special Projects Section Inspection Summary Inspection on March 26-27 and April 21, 1980 (Report No. 50-186/80-02)
Areas Inspected: Routine, announced inspection of (1) Emergency Planning, including a discussion of the licensee's emergency procedures and annual review, a discussion of the licensee's training program, discussion and examination of drills conducted in 1978 and 1980, a discussion of the licensee's emergency alarms, and an examination of the licensee's coordi-nation with support groups; (2) Environmental Protection, and; (3) Con-firmatory measurements, including a discussion of the results of samples taken during the last inspection. The inspection involved 14 inspector-hours on site by one NRC inspector.
Results: No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
.*
8006160
.
d
.
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Licensee Employees
- R. Brugger, Ph.D., Director
- D. Alger, PhD., Associate Director C. McKibben, Reactor Manager
- C. Edwards, Facility Engineer, Acting Reactor Manager
- 0. Olsen, Manager, Reactor Health Physics
- M. Vonk, Reactor Operations Engineer
- C. Tompson, Ph.D., Chairman, Reactor Advisory Committee S. Morris, Research Scientist Other Personnel W. Hndnell, Battalion Fire Chief, Columbia Fire Department D. Christian, Fire Marshall, Columbia Fire Department
- R. Mason, Chief, University Police E. Burry, Captain, University Police
- Denotes those present at exit interview.
An additional exit interview was held by telephone with Dr. Brugger on April 21, 1980.
2.
Emergency Procedures The licensee currently has no comprehensive Emergency Plan; however, emergency procedures which are a part of the facility's " Standard Operating Procedures" (SOP) are available. These procedures contain
,
telephone numbers for key personnel and support groups, a facility evacuation, plan, a reactor isolation plan, and a fire plan. The licensee's Administrative Requirements section of the Technical Specifications require " written procedures.
. for emergencies to
.
the reactor or facility which could result in significant radioactive releases, and for radiological control..." These procedures appear to be adequate for the subject areas covered; however, they do not constitute an emergency plan, and do not contain the elements of Regulatory Guide 2.6, " Emergency Planning for Research Reactors" (January 1979). The inspector discussed with licensee personnel the desirability of writing an emergency plan to conform to Regulatory
Guide 2.6, with the existing procedure as implementing procedures to the plan. This was discussed at the exit interview. Licensee representatives acknowledged the inspector's comments.
3.
Annual Review of Emergency Procedures The licensee's Technical Specifications also require a copy of these procedures to be available in the Control Room, and an annual review and approval by the Reactor Supervisor. The inspector exe.ained the 2-
-
.
Control Room copy of the licensee's Emergency Procedures and noted
.
that the procedures were revised in 1977.
The inspector discussed the annual review of the procedures with the Reactor Manager by telephone on April 2, 1980. He stated that he reviewed the procedures, beginning in June 1979, and revised certain parts of the procedures. The licensee failed to document the completion of the review of these procedures, however. The li-censee also failed to have the revised procedures typed during 1979.
The procedures are presently being typed. The Reactor Manager stated that while the telephone list was revised, the procedures were not substantially revised. Also, he stated that more administrative con-trols were added to the procedures.
Because the review was performed in 1979, the actual emergency responses were not changed, and a current telephone list is located in the lobby, this item is not considered to be an item of noncompliance. However, it has been determined that this review does not meet the intent of the annual review required by the Technical Specifications. Therefore, this item is considered to be a Significant Inspection Finding.
This item will be reviewed by the inspector during a future inspection to determine that all reviews are performed and revisions typed and distributed in a timely manner.
4.
Training Although the licensee conducts initial training in the Emergency Pro-cedures, no periodic refresher training is conducted. The inspector stressed the importance of refresher training to be given to person-nel routinely working in the facility. The licensee is presently preparing a videotape of security training and could casily add a review of emergency procedures to the tape. This item was discussed at the exit interview. The licensee acknowledged the inspector's com-ments.
This item will be examined in a future inspection.
5.
Drills
,
Although no requirements exist, the licensee conducts emergency drills approximately once per year. The inspector examined records of drills the licensee conducted on Octole 20, 1978, and January 14, 1980, and noted that during both drills some personnel did not leave the build-ing when the evacuation alarm was initiated. The licensee's Facility Evacuation Procedure calls for the Duty Operator and Assistant Duty Operator to check that all personnel are evaucated from all levels; however, it is this inspector's conclusion that this problem results from inadequate training given by the licensee to personnel working in the facility. This was discussed with licensee personnel, who acknowledged the inspector's comments.
This item will be examined during a future inspection.
-3-
.
.
.
6.
Emergency Alarms Licensee representatives stated that there are no automatic fire alarms in the reactor facility. The person discovering a fire would report the fire to the Columbia Fire Department and the Control Room. The licensee would then initiate the Fire Plan.
The licensee has one alarm for reactor isolation and facility evac =-
tion. For reactor isolation, the alarm sounds in Containment only; for facility evacuation, it sounds throughout the entire facility.
The licensee then initiates the appropriate emergency procedure. This alarm is tested every two weeks on a maintenance day. As the alarm actuates a reactor scram, the inspector did not have the alarm tested.
The licensee also has gas and particulate monitors and area radiation
monitors located throughout the facility. Several of the alarms were satisfactorily tested during the inspector's visit.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
7.
Support Agencies The inspector visited the Columbia Fire Department and the University Police and discussed their coordination with the reactor facility in the event of an emergency. Representatives indicated that coordination is good and no problems exist with the facility.
All fire department vehicles are equipped with civil defense survey instrumentation, and department members are trained in its use.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were noted.
8.
Environmental The licensee voluntarily conducts a routine environmental monitoring program under the supervision of the Manager, Reactor Health Physics.
.
Nine vegetation and soil samples and four water samples are taken two times per year and analyzed for gross alpha, gross beta, and gamma.
The inspector reviewed the program results for 1979 and observed no apparent trends in the data.
As the result of a letter dated March 16, 1979, to the NRC, Division j
of Operating Reactors, the licensee has placed a series of TLD's around the facility at va ious locations for the period of one year. According to the letter, continuation of this program will depend on the results of this one year evaluation. All results will be collated into a report after the last quarter TLD's, which are presently in the field, are read.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
9.
Confirmatory Measurements The inspector collected samples of liquid waste, particulate and char-coal filters for future comparative analyses under the Confirmatory Measurements Program.
-4-
_ _ _ ___ _ - _ _ _
.
The inspector also discussed the results of the samples collected in
"
December, 1978. Out of eleven sample comparisons, the licensee's sample results shewed two disagreements. These disagreements were for Fe-59 in the liquid sample and I-131 on the particulate filter.
Although the results from the NRC Reference Laboratory were above the licensee's lower limit of detection for both nuclides, no results were reported by the licensee. No explanation for these disagreements was found. The licensee's failure to detect these nuclides did not re-sult in an effluent release limit being exceeded during the period of time near this sample comparison.
10.
Exit Inte rview The inspector met with licensee representatives (denoted in paragraph 1) at the conclusion of the inspection on March 27, 1980, and conducted an additional exit interview with Dr. Brugger by telephone on April 21, 1980. The purpose and scope of the inspection and the following items were discussed. Licensee representatives acknowledged the inspector's comments.
An emergency plan conforming with Regulatory Guide 2.6.
.
The annual review of emergency procedures during 1979.
.
Lack of refresher training in the emergency procedures.
.
Attachments:
1.
Criteria for Comparing Analytical Measurements, Attachment 1 2.
Table 1, Confirmatory Measurements Program - Columbia
i
)
l-5-
-.
. - _.
_.
-
_
. _
.
ATTACINrNT 1
-
,
,
,
_CRkTr.Ry_FOR CO'IPAR_T"G AJiALY, TEAL !!ESSURDirNT_S
'
,
This attachment provides criteria for comparing results of capability
-
tests and verificatiun measurements.
The criterin are based on an empirical relationship which combines prior experience and the accuracy needs of this program.
.
In these criteria, the judgment limits are variabic in relation to the
,
comparison of the NRC Reference Laboratory's value to its associated one sigma uncertainty.
As that ratio, referred to in this program as
,
" Resolution", increases, the acceptability of a licensce's measurement
.
should be more selective.
Conversely, poorer agreement should be con-sidered acceptabic as the resolution decreases.
The values in the ratio criteria may be rounded to fewer significant figures to maintain statistical consistency with the number of significant figures reported
.
by the NRC Reference Laboratory, unicss such rounding will result in a
_
narrowed category of acceptance.
The acceptance category reported will
-
be the narrowest into which the ratio fits for the resolution being used.
~
RESOLUTION RATIO = LICENSEE VALUE/NRC REFERENCF VALUE Possible Possibic
.
Agreement Agreement "A" Agreeable "B"
.
_
,
.
<3
,
No Comparison No Comparison No Comparison
>3 and <4 6.4 2.5 0. 3 3.0 No Comparison
-
-
T4 and <8 0.5 0.4 2.0 2.5 0.3 3.0
-
-
-
-
I8 and <16 2.0 0.4
- 2.5 O.6 1.67 0.5
'
-
-
Y16 and <51 0.75 - 1.33 0.6
- 1.67 0.5 2.0
-
T51 and <200 0.80 1.25 0.75 1.33 0.6 1.67
-
-
.__2 00 0.85 - 1.18 0.80
, 1.25 0.75 1.33
-
.
.
,
"A" criteria are applied to the following analyses:
,
Gamma spectrometry, where principal gamma energy used for identifi-
'
cation is greater than 250 kev.
-
Tritium analyses of liquid sampics.
,,
"B" criteria are applied to the following analyses:
Camma spectrometry, where principal gamma energy used for identifi-
,
. cation is less than 250 kcV.
.
,
Sr,-89 and Sr-90 determinations.
Gross beta, where samples are counted on the same date using the same reference nuclide.
.
.,
.
O
- 8 e
,e
.
e e
e
-
,.
.
..
..
.
.
.
.
Q
.
-
-
D 1A3LE I e
O 3 fUCLE8 8 5FGULA' TUP.Y COMMISSIOh 0FFICE GF 10SF E CT10h A ND E F OT.CE ME NT CONFIPPA10rY ME A SUF.E MENT S P R OGR A F.
CACIL11Y: COLUMBIA FCh 1HE 4 0 0 A F T E f. OF 1973
-
hic
---N P C : L IC E N S E E ----
SAMPtF IS0 TOFF EESULT Ebf0F
- ESULT ERFCF RATIG TES T
L VASTF SB 125 1 CF-15 1.CE-Oc 1 0E-05
10 1 0E +01 A
le5E+00 1 9E +01 P
MP 51 5 '7E -P 5 2.CE-Le 5 2E-05
1 4E+00 2 9E +01 P
FF ! <-
5 3r-7o 1.CE-06
30
5 0E +03
1 2E +03 1.5 E + 01 A
C0 63 1 7E-14 5 0" -C e 2 3E -0 4
1 4E +02 3e 4E + 31 P
SE 124 1 2E-lu s.CF-Oo 1 4F-04
1,2E+00 3 0E+01 A
1e1E+00 1.oE +0 2 A
I FILTEP I 1 31 2.GF-05 4.1F-36
00 0 e0 4 9E +00
C FILTES I i ll 5 1 E-9 3 1. rE -C e 4 5E-03
8 3 E -01
?.8E +01 A
HG 203 1 :1 E -73
.' i ( E - J 5 8 3E -0 4
7.5 E -01 1 - oE + 01 A
.
T TEST KFSULTS:
A = A G F E F ME N T D nD I S A GME E ".E NT PnPOSSIBLE A G F FE ME NT tt=ND CO MP A F I S ON D**D
- D oo o
.
- s