IR 05000186/1981006
| ML20039A117 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | University of Missouri-Columbia |
| Issue date: | 11/19/1981 |
| From: | Boyd D, Ridgway K NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II), NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20039A111 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-186-81-06, 50-186-81-6, NUDOCS 8112160245 | |
| Download: ML20039A117 (8) | |
Text
-._
__
'
. +1
..
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION III
Report No. 50-186/81-06 Docket No. 50-186 License No. R-103 Licensee: University of Missouri Columbia, MO 65201 Facility Name: University of Missouri Research Reactor Facility Inspection Conducted: October 26-30, 1981 Inspector:
K.
i
//~//' 8/
fn y /*
'
Approved By:
D. C. Boyd, CKief
//' /9~~O /
Reactor Projects Section 1A Inspection Summary Inspection on October 26-30, 1981 (Report No. 50-186/81-06)
Areas Inspected: Routine, unannounced inspection of records, logs and or-ganization; review and audit functions; requalification training; procedures; experiments; radiation protection program; radwaste management program and followup action relative.to Licensee Event Reports and Open Inspection Items.
This inspection involved a total of 52 inspector-hours (32 onsite) by one NRC inspector including'0 inspector-hours onsite during offshifts.
Results:
No items of noncompliance were identified in the arear, inspected.
8112160245 811201~'
PDR ADOCK 05000 86
. o__
_
-
m
._
_
-,
as
._,,.P
~
'
.
.
'
DETAILS
-
1.-
Persons Contactedi
D. Alger, Acting. Director, Research Reactor Facility
- J. Tolan, University Radiation Safety.0fficer
- L' Pitchford, Assistant Radiation Safety. Officer
.
'*0. 01 son, Manager, Reactor Health. Physics
"*W. Meyer, f Jr., Maintenance Engineer
- J. McKibben, Reactor Manager S.'.Gunn,. Service Engineer-A. Meyer,' Chief Reactor Service Technician
~*C._ Edwards,-Reactor Plant Engineer MJ. Tunick, Shif t Supervisor,
T.. Seeger, : Chief Electronics Technician J. Litton, HP Technician S. Stewart, HP Technician S. Growcocki HP Technician D. McGinty, Reactor Physicist
- L. Petrich, Administrative Associate The inspector also interviewed other licensee employees and facility
researchers.
.
- Indicates those attending the exit interview.
2.
General The reactor was shutdown on October 16, 1981 for a week long outage to replace the beryllium reflector.
Changing the reflector required defueling the reactor, removal of upper piping and flanges ~ on the pressure vessel, removal of control blades and offsets, and removal of several segments of graphite reflector. The change out was com-pleted without incident and after several low power reactivity tests, the reactor was returned to full power operation on October 24, 1981.
The reficctor change had been planned for 1982, but in August 1981 fine particles of beryllium were found in the primary coolant filters causing the earlier reflector replacement.
3.
Organization, Logs and Records The facility organization was reviewed _and verified to be consistent with the Technical Specifications and/or 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:
..
a.
Required entries were made, b.
Significant problems or incidents were documented.
.
. I2
-
e
.
c.
The facility was being maintained properly.
d.
Records were available for inspection.
Thefollowiyorganizationalchangeshaveoccurredsincethelastsafety inspection:
e.
Dr. D. Alger is Acting Director of the facility while Dr. R. Brugger is on a sabbatical leave.
f.
L. Schuermann, a new employee, has been appointed Operations Engineer replacing M. Vonk.
g.
W. Meyer, Jr. has been appointed Maintenance Engineer a newly established position.
Mr. Meyer has several years experience at the reactor and holds a senior operator license.
h.
One licensed operator has left; two trainees have been licensed; and two trainees are ready to take license examinations.
i.
J. Litton was promoted to Senior Health Physics Technician, a new position.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
4.
Reviews and Audits The licensee's review and audit program records were examined by the inspector to verify that:
a.
Reviews of facility changes, operating and maintenance procedures, design changes, and unreviewed experiments had been conducted by a safety review committee as required by Technical Specifications or Hazards Summary Report.
b.
That the review committee and/or subcommittees were composed of qualified members and that quorum requirements and frequency of meetings had been met.
c.
Required safety audits had been conducted in accordance with Technical Specification requirements and that any identified
,
problems were resolved.
'
The Reactor Procedure Review Subcommittee (RPRS) of the Reactor Advisory Committee (RAC) met on September 22, 1981, to review all procedure re-visions made since late in 1980. The Reactor Manager Operations Engineer or Shift Supervisor can, by procedure, approve all revisions not having safety significance, but all procedures must subsequently be reviewed by the RPRS.
The RPRS does not have a meeting frequency requirement and the 1/
IE Inspection Report No. 50-186/81-03.
-3-
,
,. _ -
__
__
_
__
_ _ _ _
-_ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - -
__
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
,. ",
.fl)
.
-
chairman acknowledged the inspectors comment-that reviewing procedures revisions made 12 months ago did not seem to be timely and stated that reviewLof procedure revisions would.be made in a more timely manner.
-
1The~RPRS had; reviewed the special maintenance procedure for the reflector changeout on October 14',.1981, prior to :the work.
The RAC'has established an audit' program which requires review of the'
safety program'in the areas.of reactor operations, health physics,.
safeguards and-transportation._ An area is to be reviewed every six months with each area'being audited at least biennially. This action closes an'open' inspection item (50-186/80-05-03)'previously reported.2/-
The areas of reactor operations and transportation had been audited in
'
June-1981. The recommendations of_ the auditor to clearly define the division.of responsibilities between the Health' Physics group and the Reactor Service _ group was being accomplished by revising pertinent
- health physics procedures.
Prior to the; start of this inspection the Assistant Radiation Safety Officer.had commenced the audit of the health physics program at the reactor facility.
No items of. noncompliance were identified.
5.
Requalification Training The inspector-reviewed procedures, logs and training records; and interviewed personnel. to verify that the requalification training.
_
program was being carried out in conformance with the facility's approved plan and NRC regulations. Thirteen requalification exam-inations had been conducted in September 1981.
The licensee prequalification examinations are held on a biennial schedule. Two recently. licensed operators were excused from the examination.
The. licensee had'previously established a method to assure that all changes to procedures and equipment are' reviewed by the staff in a timely manner. Documentation of this review is accomplished using the " Change Review Sheet" which-is signed by all licensed personnel.
The " Change _ Review Sheet'! has not ~been used for compliance check procedures and some other special procedure-changes that were made
' through standing orders. The licensee stated that in the future all-new or _ revised procedures or instructions would be included ':ht the change documentation system.
'No items of noncompliance ~were identified.
.
.
.
-
,2/_
IE Inspection Report No. 50-186/80-05.
~
,
__
-;4 --
'
,
^
- >
,
.
,
-
T: 4
.
.
- 6.
Procedures The-inspector reviewed the-licensee's procedures to determine if procedures were issued,l reviewed,< changed or updated, and approved in accordance with Technical Specifications and HSR requirements.
!
-
This review also verified:
a.~
That procedure content was adequate to safely operate, refuel'and-
. maintain.the facility.
b.
That responsibilities were clearly defined.
That required checklists and forms'were'used.
!
c.
' The' inspector determined th'at the required procedures were available and the contents of the procedures were adequate.
'During the inspection, Reactor Test Procedures and the Special Main-tenance Procedure for the reflector change out were reviewed. The thoroughness with which the special maintenance procedure was developed and reviewed evidently contributed to the successful and expeditious replacement of the beryllium reflector. The inspector pointed out that SOP-1, Administration Operating Pclicies, does not define the extent of
. the Control Room from which the operator can safely operate the reactor.
~
The licensee stated they would review this matter.
.
No items of. noncompliance were identified.
7.
Experiments The inspector verified by reviewing experiment records and other reactor.logsLthat:
,
a.
Experiments were conducted using approved procedures and under approved reactor conditions.
b.
-New experiments or changes in experiments were properly reviewed and approved.
c.
The experiments did not involve an unreviewed' safety question,-
i.e., 10 CFR 50.59.
- d.
Experiments involving potential hazards or reactivity change were identified in procedures, e.
Reactivity limits were not or could not have been exceeded during the experiment.
'
The experiments reviewed during this inspection were the use of the
' flux trap and.the Nuclepore Irradiation Facility.
- No items;of noncompliance were identified.
-5.
L
_
-
<
>
-
..,
.'
1a
'
L
'
-8.
Refuelina
The facility' refueling (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 and discussions with prsonnel _that fuel handling operations and startup.
.
tests were carried out in conformance to the licensee's procedures.
No items of' noncompliance were I'entified.
d 9.
. Licensee Event Reports Followup Through. direct (observations, discussions with licensee. personnel, and
'
review of records, the following event reports were;reviewe'd to determine.
that reportability requirements were fulfilled, immediate corrective-
- action was accomplished, and corrective action to prevent recurrence had-been accomplished _in accordance~with Technical Specifications.
The licensee reported on June 29, 1981, that during a maintenance outage on June 1,_1981, while performing a routine semiannual compliance check =
on the pool coolant flow instrument 921-B, the low flow scram setpoint-
_
was found to be below the Technical Specification (TS) limit-of 425 gpe.
~
The redundant pool low flow scram unit and the reflector differential scam were both found to be operable and within TS limits.
The scram trip unit was replaced with a calibrated spare that tested
~
satisfactorily. The removed unit was bench tested for two weeks of continuous operation with no evidence of setpoint drift.
10.
Transportation
.
The inspector. reviewed records of radioactive samples handled and shipped.
'The ' review included the certificates of compliance and safety analyses of Specification 7A packages used.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
11.
Radiation Control The inspector reviewed records, interviewed personnel, and made observa-
-tions and independent surveys to verify ~ that radiation controls were being carried out in.accordance with the license and NRC regulations. The areas covered were:
a.
. Posting'and labeling of restricted areas and radioactive materials.
'
b.
Control and handling of. irradiated samples.
c.
Calibration of radiation detection. instruments.
d.
Required periodic dose and contamination surveys.
H-6 -
-l j
,.
_
_ - _ _ -. - - - - -
-_
- - - _
- - - - - _ _ - - - - -. - - - - _ _ - - - - - - - -. _ - - - - - - _ - _ _ - - - - - - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
- .;
..
.!
-
.
.
.
e.
' Exposure records of personnel.
- f.', Posted' dose levels in the facility.
g.' -Personnel training.
The' inspector noted that two portable air monitors not.in routine use had not been calibrated in the last year. No calibration frequency had been establishef for_these two monitors,.however, the portable air-
- monitoriused on the pool _ deck.had been calibrated regularly on'a semi-
~
annual' schedule. The licensee stated that a calibration frequency would be established and maintained.
LNo items of noncompliance were identified.
12. Radioactive Effluents
- a.
Liquid Radwastes Releases to.the sanitary sewer from January 1981 to July 1981.were reviewed. Handlin of liquid discharges remains the same as pre-viously described.gj During this period 0.499 Ci were released.
About 67% of this activity was H-3 that entered the waste disposal system via.the leaking Drain Collection Tank.(DCT).- The DCT has beenfreplaced. Concentrations released were less than Part 20-limits.
b.
Gaseous Wastes
,
'
The average annual concentration of argon-41 discharged to the'
environment-during the period July 1, 1980 to June 30, 1981, was about 57% of the TS limit.
c.
Solid Radwaste Thelicenseehasnotshippedany47 lid wastes since the'last radiation protection inspection.-
The licensee stated that
[
American Nuclear Insurers would underwrite unlimited liability.
s for the Universities wastes at burial sites; so the' waste storage problem at the Reactor Facility might soon be resolved.
-No items of noncompliance were-identified.
13. Review of Periodic and Special Reports.
The inspector reviewed.the following reports for timeliness of submittal 1 and adequacy of information submitted:
Monthly Reports for May through August 1981.
~
. Annual. report.for July 1,'1980 through June 30, 1981.
-3/'.IE. Inspection Report _No.. 50-186/80-04.
4/ -
LIE' Inspection Report No.. 50-186/81-01.
'
-7-u e
Y.
.
.
-
e- -
..
14. Exit Interview The inspector met with licensee ' representatives (denoted in Paragraph 1)
~
at the conclusion of the inspection on October 30, 1981, and summarized
=the scope and 12ndings of the inspection.
The~ licensee acknowledged.the following comments of the inspector:
a.
The need for more' timely reviews of procedure revisions by the
.RPRS and better documentation of the review of procedure revisions and special procedures by~ members of the staff that need to be aware of these changes.
(Paragraphs 4 and 5)
b.
The need to define.the extent of the Control Room in SOPI.
'(Paragraph 6).
c.
The need to establish calibration frequencies on two air radiation -
monitors.
,
.
--8
-
'.
-
-
,
.;