IR 05000186/1986001

Insp Rept 50-186/86-01 on 860512-14.No Violation Noted. Major Areas Inspected:Records,Logs,Review & Audit Functions, Requalification Training,Procedures,Surveillance & Maint, Fuel Handling & LER Followup

ML20198N185
Person / Time
Site:	University of Missouri-Columbia
Issue date:	05/27/1986
From:	Charles Brown, Ridgeway K, Schweibinz E NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To:
Shared Package
ML20198N183	List: IR 05000186/1986001 ML20198N181
References
50-186-86-01, 50-186-86-1, NUDOCS 8606060008
Download: ML20198N185 (7)

Text

_ . _ . - - -- - .- .- - . . .- .-

J t

'

.

-; U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

REGION III

! Report No. 50-186/86001(DRP)

I Docket No. 50-186 License No. R-103 l

Licensee: University of Missouri l

i

! Facility Name: University of Missouri j Research Reactor Facility l Inspection Conducted: May 12-14, 1986

\

! Inspectors:

NU'b K. R. Ridgway 3/> 72r6

.

D'a t e '

'

!

id/ft%b C. H. B ownVr'-Q f f//7/t( '

! Date lbe k Zi @)

i Approved By: E. R. Schwei nz, Chief f/77/c4 Technical Support Staff Dite /

! f Inspection Summary I

! Inspection on May 12-14, 1986 (Report No. 50-186/86001(DRP))

l Areas Inspected: Routine, unannounced inspection of records, logs, and l organization; review and audit functions; requalification training; procedures; j surveillance and maintenance; fuel handling activities; irradiated fuel trans-

portation activities; and follow-up actions relative to licensee event reports, i IE Information Notices, open inspection items, and an allegation.

Result: No violations or significant safety issues were identified in the areas inspected.

I

i.

t

!

}

a

!

I i

,

fo l

I l

_ _ - - - _ _ _ ._ _ _- _ . . _ _ _ _ _ .._ _ __ _ _ _ _... _ _ _ _. _ . _ _ _ _ ..

- . - - - - _

._. - - - ---. - - . . -

,

i DETAILS

l

Persons Contacted i

! *R. Brugger, Director, Research Reactor Facility

, *D. Alger, Asscciate Director, Research Reactor Facility j *J. McKibben, Engineer, Special Studies

,

• Meyers, Acting Reactor Manager

+

• R. Hultch, Reactor Physicist '

i *C. Edwards, Reactor Plant Engineer *

• C. Anderson, Shift Supervisor

! *0. Olson, Manager, Reactor Health Physics *

D. Trokia, Research Technician

'

! * Indicates those present at the exit intervie >

a General l

i This inspection, which began at 8:20 a.m. on May 12, 1986, was conducted to l examine the research reactor program at the University of Missouri. The i

facility was toured shortly after arrival. The inspectors observed the j receipt of a shipment of reactor fuel. The general housekeeping of the j ' facility remains satisfactory, as was noted in the previous inspection

(Inspection Report No. 50-186/85005(DRP)).

I The licensee had received the NRC show cause order to reduce the amount l of high enriched fuel (HEU) onsite to that amount necessary to maintain a normal schedule of operations. The licensee had responded in a letter

!

dated October 10, 1985, that they could comply with Section III(2) of the order which allows a 90-day replacement fuel inventory and requested

.

verification of their interpretation of the order. On November 6, 1985

!

the Division of Safeguards responded stating that they agreed with the l

licensee's interpretation of the order.

, On February 25, 1986, the Commission amended 10 CFR 50 to require the

,

conversion of HEU fuel to LEU fuel contingent on Federal Government

) funding. The licensee plans to submit a request for exemption from these regulations, prior to September 29, 1986, because of the " Unique i Purpose" of their research programs.

l Organization, Logs and Records

.

The facility organization was reviewed and verified to be consistent with the Technical Specifications and/or Safety Analysis Report (SAR). The minimum staffing requirements were verified to be present during reactor 7 operation, and fuel handling or refueling operations, i

The reactor logs and records were reviewed to verify that:

1 Records were available for inspection.

j Required entries were made.

l

!.

a t

_ - _- .-

i r* *

1 -

0, j

. Significant problems or incidents'were documented.

i The facility was being maintained properl '

!

<

On November 22, 1985, the licensee submitted a reorganization change,

<

Figure 6.0 of the Technical Specifications (TS), to remove the Associate Vice President for Academic Affairs from the management chain. The Reactor Facility Director now reports directly to the Vice President Academic Affairs.

! No violations or. deviations weret identified, i,

! Reviews and Audits-(40745)

,

1 ,

The licensee's review and audit program records were examined by the '

inspectors to verify that: 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

,

SA That the review committee and/or subcommittees were composed of qualified members and that quorum requirements and frequency of

meetings had been me Required safety audits had been conducted in accordance with Technical

.

Specification requirements and that any identified problems were j resolve >

2 A review of the Reactor Advisory Committee meeting minutes indicated the j committee and subcommittees were meeting all. requirements.

} No violations or deviations were identified.

i i Requalification Training (41745)

The inspector reviewed procedures, logs, and training records; and interviewed personnel to verify that the requalification training program i was being carried out in conformance with the facility's approved plan and

NRC regulations. The~ biennial requalification examination had been I

conducted in 1985.

!

] No violations or deviations were identified.

!

l procedures (42745)

The inspector reviewed'the licensee's procedures to de'termine if procedures

were issued, reviewed, changed or updated, and approved in accordance with Technical Specifications and SAR requirements. This rev'iew also verified

l 1 That procedure content was adequate to safely operate, refuel and i maintain the facility.

l

i 3

' '

,

_ . - . , . . ~ _ . _ ~ _ , _ . - ,,-,,__-,+::_

_ . __ _ . - . _ -

i

.

.

' That responsibilities were clearly define That required checklists and forms were used.

The inspector noted that an unscheduled scram, initiated by a primary water

, low pressure trip, had been caused from starting up the cold secondary water flow during a reactor startu Startup procedures did not provide

guidance to prevent a drop in primary water pressure when starting the cold

secondary water flow. The licensee is adding a reminder to their procedures

to prevent further scrams of this type. Other required procedures were j available and the contents of the procedures were adequate.

1 No violations or deviations were identified.

.

7. Surveillance (61745)

The inspector reviewed procedures, surveillance test schedules and test records and discussed the surveillance program with responsible personnel to verify:

, That, when necessary, procedures were available and adequate to

perform test That tests were completed within the required time schedule.

! Test records were availabl The licensee's surveillance program appeared to be satisfactor ,

No violations or deviations were identifie . Experiments (69I45)

The inspector verified by reviewing experiment records and other reactor 2 logs that:

i Experiments were conducted using approved procedures and under i

approved reactor conditions.

I New experiments or changes in experiments were properly reviewed and

,

approve I The experiments did not involve an unreviewed safety question, i.e.,

i 10 CFR 50.59 requirements regarding experiments were met.

Experiments involving potential hazards or reactivity changes were

'

identified in procedure Reactivity limits were not or could not have been exceeded during an

experiment. The inspector reviewed the one experiment approved since l the last inspectio No violations or deviations were identifie .

_ . __ _ _ _ _ . . - -

,

- -

,

_ .

,

-

. ,

. . fuel. Handling (60745) '

,

-

.

i

,

The, facility. fuel handling program was reviewed by the inspector. The review included the verification of approved procedures for fuel handling and their technical adeauacy in the- areas of radiation protection, criti-cality safety, Technical ~ Specification and security plan requirements. :The inspector determined by records reviaw and discussions with personnel ~that fuel handling operations were carriedLoutfin conformance of the licensee's procedure '

No violations or deviatiens were identified.'

'

10. Transportation Activities (86740) '

The inspector reviewed records of irradiated fuel shipments maffe since the last inspection t.o determine that Department of Tran.<portation (DOT)

regulations were being followed ini The selection of the propyr shipping container Thepreparationofpackahesfor-shipping'.

The records Yf shipment ' l The inspectors reviewed the shipping rdcords for the three shiptaents made

,i since the last inscettio No violations or deviaticns were identifie . Licensee Event Reports Fo_llow-up (92700)

Through direct observationt, discussions with licensee personnel, and review of records, the following event reports were reviewed to determine that reportability. requirements were fulfilled, immediate corrective action to prevent recurrence had been accomplished in accordanc5s.with Technical Specifications requirements.

(Closed) Licensee Event Report 50-186/85-02, the' rod'rus-in trip function 1 for Power Range Monitor No. 5 was found inoperabie during performance

'

checks of the nuclear instrumentation prior t: startup=on July 18, 198 The failure was attribund to the GE 194X38aGl' trip uni.t and the unit Was replaced. All other spare units of this type were tested and met the technical manual specification ,

. i t (Closed) Licensee Event Report 50-186'/86-01, On February 3,1986s ,tlhe licensee received notice from the Office of Nuclear Materials' Safety and Safeguards (NMSS) that their Quality Assurance Program (QAP) Approval'for -

Radioactive Materials Packages had expired on ,Dacember 31, 1985. All shipments of radioactive materials were terminated upon receipt of the '

notification and a request for renewal was immediately submitted by the

.li cep see. The- renewal was approved without change by NMSS on February 4, 1986. Some 14 shipments made frem January 1, 1986 until the notification was received on February 3, 1986 were made in accordance with the

' ,

- , ; ,

t!

5 ,

- '

.

y

/

- -

- . - - - , -,n, , ,..,-c.-e - --

--4 ..y ,, , + --,-t e, w,,,,v., n %--- n,~. v-..~m , . . ~ - -

e .,e' , -.-,..-p-,

'

,

.-

subsequently renewed QAP and other Department of Transportation regulation The licensee was unaware that the QAP approval had a five year ter . Follow-t,p on Open Inspection Items

' (Closed) Open Item 50-186/81-06-03, Failure of the Reactor Procedure Review Subcommittee (RPRS) to make timely reviews of procedure

_

changes. The RPRS has been meeting approximately every 90 days to review procedure changes; this frequency appears to be adequat (Closed)OpenItem 50-186/84-01-02, Technical Specification contain obsolete references to the U.S. AEC. The licensee's submittal of November 22, 1985 for TS amendment included these correction (Closed) Open Item 50-186/64-01-04, Some Compliance Check Procedures (CCP) did not contain TS references. The licensee had revised nine CCPs, adding pertir.ent TS reference . Review of Periodic and Special Reports (90713)

The inspector reviewed the follcwing reports for timeliness of submittal and adequacy of information submitted: Annual Report, July 1984 to June 1985 Monthly Reports, July 1985 thre March 1986 No violations or deviaticos were identifie . Allegation (0 pen)

'An allegation was received that gem stones are being irradiated at your facility and released to non-licensees. This was known to be true. This activity of irradiating topaz stones was reviewed during our inspection ir. 1984, 1985, and also during this inspection. Some questions remain ;

with regard to the counting methods used to determine that the topaz stones released for shipping are not radioactive. A meeting to discuss these concerns is scheduled for June 4,1986 at the NRC Region III offic . Exit Interview (30703)

The inspector met with the licensee representatives (listed in Paragraph 1)

at the conclusion of the inspection on May 14, 1986 and summarized the scope and findings of the inspection. The inspector also discussed the likely informational content of the inspection report with regard to )

documents or processes reviewed by the inspector during the inspectio l The licensee did not identify any documents or processes as proprietar l The licensee acknowledged the following remarks by the inspector at the meeting:

.

- -

. - , - . . . - - .-. _. _ - _ . _ .

. The need to revise the startup procedures to include the effects of cold secondary water on the primary water pressure during some startups (Paragraph 6).

~

Th'e licensee agreed to meet with the NRC staff (on June 4, 1986) to discuss our concerns regarding the counting methods used to determine that irradi-ated topaz stones are not radioactive prior to release to non-licensee