IR 05000186/1986002
| ML20214T424 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | University of Missouri-Columbia |
| Issue date: | 09/23/1986 |
| From: | Patterson J, Snell W, Williamsen N NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20214T411 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-186-86-02, 50-186-86-2, NUDOCS 8609300293 | |
| Download: ML20214T424 (6) | |
Text
. .
_
._ __ _
- -
- .
.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION III
Report No. 50-186/86002(DRSS)
Docket No. 50-186 License No. R-103 Licensee: University of Missouri Research Reactor Facility Research Park Columbia, M0 65201 Facility Name: Research Reactor Facility
,
Inspection At: University of Missouri, Columbia, M0 Inspection Conducted: September 8-10, 1986 Inspectors:
-
P. Patterson b p2.3-gb Date
. R. Williamsen ~8b Date Approved By: ih 5 $ el , Chief 9 -N Emergency Pr paredness Date Section Inspection Summary Inspection on September 8-10, 1986 (Report No. 50-186/86002(DRSS))
Areas Inspected: Routine unannounced inspection of the onsite emergency preparedness program at the Research Reactor Facility involving three general areas: Emergency Organization, Emergency Response, and Maintaining Emergency Preparedness. Specifically, six weaknesses identified in the Emergency Preparedness Appraisal were addressed to determine if the licensee's corrective actions were satisfactory. Other items identified in the appraisal were also addresse Results: No violations, deficiencies or deviations were identified as a result of this inspectio gDR ADOCK 05000186 PDR
_ _ - - _ _ - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ . _
-
.
DETAILS 1. Persons Contacted R. Brugger, Director D. Alger, Associate Director W. Meyer, Acting Reactor Manager 0. Olson, Manager Reactor Health Physics C. Anderson, Shift Supervisor 2. Licensee Actions on Previously Identified Items from the Emergency Preparedness Appraisal (Report No. 50-186/85002) (Closed) Open Item No. 186/85002-01: The licensee was instructed to add the following Emergency Action Levels (EALs) to .their emergency procedures as follows:
Unusual Event - Threats to or breaches of facility securit Prolonged fire or min r explosion within the the facility but non:,pecific to the reactor or its control syste Other plant conditions exist that warrant assuring emergency personnel are available to respond and assuring information will be provided to off-site authoritie Alert - Fire or explosion which might adversely-affect the reactor or its safety system Loss of physical control of the facilit Other plant conditions exist that warrant notification of the emergency staff and activation of the Facility Emergency Organizatio Site Area Emergency - Fire compromising the functions of safety system Other plant conditions exist that warrant activation of the Facility Emergency Organization and assistance from off-site support organization The licensee's review of the two EALs relating to fires for the Alert and Site Area Emergency determined that they would not apply to this research reactor since all reactor process systems are placed in the shutdown condition due to the fail safe design of the system which permits shutdown decay heat removal with no electrical powe Therefore, a fire threatening the system causes a major operational problem but does not significantly increase the possibility of fuel damag For the Unusual Event which addresses threats to or breaches of facility security, the licensee chose to add "that have a significant potential for a radiological exposure of the staff or public approaching 1 rem whole body or 5 rem thyroid."
,
.
This modification for the Unusual Event EAL was previously accepted by-NRC in response to the licensee's letter of April 12, 1986; however, as was stated then, this security threat EAL should stand alone without radiological consequences. Action on such an EAL may take place before a radiological release occurs and is not predicated on the release being in progress. Licensee management agreed to consider changing this security related EAL to what was originally intended by the appraisal team. Insertion of this security related EAL into the Emergency Plan and Procedures without the radiological exposure addition is an Open Item and will be reviewed at a subsequent inspection. Open Item No. 186/86002-0 The inspectors have agreed to accept the balance of EAL changes as modified. The original item will be closed, b. (0 pen) Open Item No. 186/85002-02: The licensee was requested to provide procedures for obtaining and analyzing stack samples under accident conditions. The inspectors determined that this Procedure, No. HP-30, was only in a rough draft fom. The Lead Inspector obtained an oral commitment from licensee management to complete this procedure in final form and send a copy to Region III copy for review within 60 days. This item remains open, c. (Closed) Open Item No. 186/85002-03: The procedures had some inconsistencies in responsibilities and assigned tasks for evacuation activities among the Emergency Coordinator, Duty Operator and the surveillance team. Site Emergency Procedures (SEP) No. 2, 3, 4 and also Facility Emergency Procedures (FEP) No. 1 and 2 have been revised to clarify the authority and responsibility for each position in evacuations. Also on Page 5 of the Emergency Plan the Emergency Coordinator's responsibility ar'e listed as they relate to an evacuation. These changes are considered satisfactory, and this item is close d. (Closed) Open Item No. 186/85002-04: Procedures needed to be revised to accurately reflect how accountability will be implemented, and that surveying for contamination will be required of personnel before they can leave the area. The inspectors confirmed that both SEP and FEP procedures now clarify how accountability will be implemented, and as subsequent actions FEP-1 and FEP-2 state that all personnel shall be monitored by Health Physics Technicians per Procedure No. HP-20 before being released to leave the site. This item is closed, e. (Closed) Open Item No. 186/85002-05: The licensee was requested to supply personnel monitoring equipment and dosimetry to off-site emergency response personnel or anyone entering the facility under circumstances where they might receive a significant dose. Procedures No. SEP-10, " Monitoring Off-site Personnel" and SEP-11 " Monitoring Planned Exposures in Excess of Limits in 10 CFR 20" have been issued to meet this item's requirement. The inspectors reviewed these procedures and found them adequate. Also, a supply of dosimeters and film badges controlled by the licensee and available for any off-site personnel are kept in the lobby of the reactor building. This item is close .
O (Closed) Open Item No. 186/85002-06: The licensee was requested to provide the required biennial training for the medical support staff in handling contaminated injured persons. This training was conducted by the University Health Physics Services in two sessions, July 1 and 3, 1985. Training session format and list of attendees were reviewed by the inspector and found to be acceptable. This item is close . Licensee Actions on Appraisal Improvement Items The licensee was requested to integrate the original facility emergency procedures into a new, single set of radiological emergency procedures applicable to all emergencie The licensee has combined the SEPs and FEPs into one manual, and where applicable they are cross referenced. This appeared adequate to the
'
inspectors; however, it is still somewhat cumbersome with the two separate subsets of procedures, The inspection team on the appraisal concluded that training for personnel responsible for directing emergency response at.tivities
'
should be improve Training has been improved in classifying events based on stack monitor readings. The overlays to be used with the strip charts in the control room have been revised to determine the extent of activity for iodine and particulate for easier classification. Another overlay was developed to determine the extent of gaseous activity. As recommended, an ion chamber detector has replaced a Geiger-Muller instrument for determining plume location. The use of the ion chamber detector is specified in SEP- The inspecto'rs interviewed five emergency response personnel. Two were interviewed as Emergency Director (ED) and three as Health Physics Manager (HPM). The two EDs demonstrated familiarity with the emergency procedures and were able to classify an emergency based on information provided by the inspector. One individual did not know that the NRC should be notified within one hour ~after the event was
- classified. Both expressed some concern with the adequacy of the reading list method presently used for annual trainin Although all three of the HP technicians who were authorized to serve as HPMs were apparently well qualified in health physics,'their responses to a table-top scenario were based more on their health
'
physics knowledge than on the Emergency Plan and implementing procedures. As an example, there was confusion regarding the poir.ts from which the evacuation alarm could be sounded; some of those
'
interviewed were not aware that they could sound the evacuation alarm from outside of containment. Also, they required some prompting
before they opened the procedures and recognized that, conditions being suitable, the Health Physics Manager should set up the radiolog-ical control point in the lobby. The inspector concluded that the training for the personnel who were alternates for the emergency position of Health Physics Manager was weak and'the resulting level of knowledge was only marginally acceptabl __ _ _ _ _ _ _ - . _ - - - _, . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ._
,
From the five interviews conducted by the inspectors, the conclusion
.was that the present reading list method used for annual training could be improved. The inspectors recommended supplementing this reading list by classroom type lectures where both the student and instructor can gain from an interchange of emergency preparedness information. The adequacy of the training program will be addressed
.in a subsequent inspection. This is an Open Item No. 186/86002-02
!
Annual emergency drills were conducted which involve the Facility Emergency Organization. Every other year this drill scope was j enlarged to include Emergency Support Organizations of the University l and the City of Columbia Fire Department. This joint drill was conducted on October 31, 1985. The inspectors confirmed that critiques were held following the 1985 drill and that actions were taken as a result of these critiques to improve the progra In response to Items No.-3 and 4 of the improvement items, emergency-kit inventory lists have been put in the emergency kits to accurately reflect the contents of the kit. However, the emergency equipment maintenance Procedure No. SEP-8, should be revised to include a
.
statement that all maintenance and inventory records on emergency I
equipment shall be maintained in the. Health Physics Offic The licensee has agreed to include the locations and description of decontamination control facilities and supplies in the next Emergency Plan revision (Improvement Item No. 5). Training in the use of self contain breathing apparatus (SCBA) for members of the facility emergency response organization (Improvement Item No. 6) has been provided by the Columbia, Missouri, Fire Department on April 14, 198 Improvement Items No. 7-and 8 concerned providing personnel dosimetry for off-site personnel and information on dosimetry in the Emergency Plan. Procedure No. SEP-10, Emergency Dosimeters for Off-site Personnel, satisfactorily addressed these concerns for off-site personnel including providing a record form for recording exposure information for self reading pocket chambers and film badges. The licensee agreed to include in the next Emergency Plan revision some information on dosimetry provided for emergencies; however, licensee management preferred to keep specifics of type and range of dosimeters and other details in the implementing procedure The licensee was asked to provide a means for recording and logging personnel exposure received during emergency response other than just authorized exposures beyond 10 CFR Part 20 limits. (Improvement Item No.9). The licensee has issued Procedure No. SEP-11, Monitored Planned Exposures in excess of limits of 10 CFR Part 20, to meet this request. This proceuure includes emergency exposure guidelines, personnel selection considerations, a list of the type, range, and locations of self reading dosimeters, and a work sheet for emergency exposure authorizations and record. The inspector's review of this procedure concluded that, if used diligently, it will meet our concerns as listed in the emergency appraisal repor _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
..
' Training records for medical support personnel are now being maintained by Missouri University Research Reactor (MURR).as requested in Improvement Item No.10. This biennial training has been conducted by the UMC Health Physics Services, the most recent in July 1985. By having MURR maintaining these training records there should be more assurance that this training is conducted on schedul . Exit Interview The inspectors held an exit interview on September 10, 1986, at the conclusion of the inspection. Those licensee representatives who attendcd are listed in Section 1. The inspectors discussed the scope and findings of the inspection and expressed some concern about the adequacy of the
- annual reading list type of training for emergency response personne The lead inspector contacted the Associate Director by telephone on September 11, 1986, to determine if any of the contents of the report discussed during the meeting vere considered proprietary. The Associate Director replied that in his jadgment none of the information should be proprietar