IR 05000186/1988002

Insp Rept 50-186/88-02 on 881018-20.No Violations Noted. Major Areas Inspected:Onsite Emergency Preparedness Program, Training,Emergency Facilities & Equipment,Emergency Notifications,Communications & Emergency Plan Review

ML20195E409
Person / Time
Site:	University of Missouri-Columbia
Issue date:	10/31/1988
From:	Patterson J, Snell W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To:
Shared Package
ML20195E408	List: IR 05000186/1988002 ML20195E400
References
50-186-88-02, 50-186-88-2, NUDOCS 8811080030
Download: ML20195E409 (6)

Text

i

%

,

0. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

REGION III

Report No. 50-186/88002(DRSS)

Docket No. 50-186 License No. R-103 Licensee: University of Missouri Research Reactor Facility Research Park Columbia, MO 65201 Facility Name: Research Reactor Facility Inspection At: University of Misseuri, Columbia, Missouri Inspection Conducted: October 18-20, 1988 Uc\

Inspector: . P. Patterson /0/3/[8$-

Date '

f$

Approved By: William Snell, Chief / 3 Ff" Emergency Preparedness Sectiun Date <

Inspection Summary Inspection or_.0ctober 18-20, 1988 (Report No. 50-186/38002(DRSS))

Areas Inspected: Routine unannounced inspection of the onsite emergency preparedness program at the Research Reactor Facility involving five general areas: training, emergency facilities and equipment, emergency notifications, communications and an emergency plan revie Results: No violations were identifie Corrective actions taken for a previous violation were evaluated and considered satisfactory. Two other :

open items were closed. One related to improvement in the emergency j preparedness training program and the other to the emergency notification j roster which was posted in key locations, but not cross referenced in an i implementing procedur The emergency preparedness program is well structured {

and overall performance has improved since the last inspectio ,.

0011000030 001031 1 PDR ADOCK 05000106 1 o PNU i

? %

.

DETAILS _ _ _ _ .

1. Persons Contacted

• R. Brugger, Director, University of Missouri Research Reactor Facility (MURR)

• C. McKibben, Reactor Manager

• Meyer, Operations Engineer

• S. Langhorst, Health Physics Manager J. Ernst, Health Physics Technician C. Anderson, Shif t Supervisor B. Bezenck, Shift Supervisor T. Barnes, Fire Marshall, City of Columbia, Missouri

• Denotes those attending the exit intervie . Licensee Actions on Previously Identified Items Delating to Emergency

'~~

Preparedness (Closed) Open Item No. 50-186/86002-02: New training methods have been devised to supolement the previous reading list approach for imparting Emergency Preparedness (EP) information to those with emergency response functions. These include practice drills with mini-scenarios utilized in tabletop sessions as well as informal interchanges of FD infornation between those managing the EP program and other MURR personnel with emergency response functions. This item is close (Closed) Open Item No. 50-186/87003-01: Corrective actions taken in response to the Notice of Violation, Severity Level V have been satisfactory. This violation related to the inventory of emergency equipment, particularly the self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA).

Further explanation may be found in Section 3.b of this repor This item is closed, (Closed) Open !;; n No. 50-186/87003-03: The emergency notification rosters were pcssed in strategic locations as specified in Procedure 3EF-1. However, there was nothing specified in Procedure SEP-1 which listed the locations for these roster postings. Procedure SEP-1, was revised on May 15, 1988 to ider.tify the three locations where these notification rosters were posta This item is close . Evaluation of the Licensee's Emergency Preparedness Program Training Since the previous inspection, interactive tabletop training sessions have been added to the reading list method for reviewing the Emergency Plan and related implementing procedJres. This

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

e-t

'

enhanced training, plus practice drills prior to the annual onsite emergency drill and the biennial drill involving offsite support

'

groups, compose the MURR EP training program. After a review of documentation it was concluded that annual and biennial training

,

'

requirements for EP are being met by the licensee as stated in Section 8.1 and 8.2 of the EP plan. Besides the biennial drill, all Fire Department personnel have again been provided with an 1 orientation training program of the MURR facility within the j last year.

!

One phase of the biennia'i training involved training for medical

support personnel as ambulance personnel and emergency medical

teams. Hospital personnel providing medical services take charge

of the emergency event once the victim or victims are transported c from MURR to the University of Missouri Hospital. Medical support l personnel were trained by the University of Missouri Health Physics

! Services. Documentation for this training was difficult to obtai Training records were finally obtained through some extra effort

,

of MURR managemen > To eliminate further problems on the availability of these training

records, the licensee has agreed to provide this training directly 4 through MURR management and staff personnel rather than having University Health Physics Services do the training. This j biennially required training will be given prior to each drill and

! address all the EP related portions of the drill including critiques i and followup on these critiques. These training related changes

)

'

will also be described in a plan revision and a revision of SEP-9, Training Procedure for Emergency Preparedness. These

! revisions are scheduled to be completed within approximately l

three month ,

j To evaluate the effectiveness of EP training, interviews were conducted with two staff representatives who could serve as Emergency Directors (ED), two who could act as Health Physics

! Managers (HPM) and the Fire Marshall of the Columbia Fire i

Department. Mini-scenarios were presented to each ED. Their

!

responses as to what emergency actions they would take plus answers j to other EP related questions were very good.

.

'

The two HPMs interviewed demonstrated good knowledge of the EP plan as well as the implementing procedures. Each was familiar with and knowledgeable of the procedures to follow if an evacuation was required. The importance of notification actions to the American

,

Nuclear Insurers, the State Emergency Management Agency, and the NRC for an Notification for an Unusual Event (NUE) was emphasized to both HPMs as part of SEP-1 requirements, Since the local Folice

,

Department and Fire Department, as well as the University of Missouri j Hospital, are not requ(red to respond except for the Alert level or

abcve, there was a tendency not to concentrate on the notification

! requirements of SEP-1 for the NUE category. The NUE would probably be the most realistic type of event which could occur. One meaningful l

l l

l

8 '

'

• piece of information obtained was that both HPM designees had participated in SCBA training by the Columbia Fire Department which involved wearing the entire gear in a smoke filled room while traversing horizontally. This was an example of very r, istic training for EP responder Two wortFwhile suggestions were put forth by the onsite individuals interviewed. Oae was that licensee management should consider establishing a position of Training Coordinator for all facets of training including emergency preparedness. This could include

'

. lesson plans and a training course matrix. The other suggestion was to provide cardio pulmonary resuscitation (CPR) training for the staff, especially those with ancillary duties as EP responder Both of these suggestions should be considered by MURR managemen Based on the above review, this portion of the Itcensee's program is adequate, b. Emergency Facilities and Equipment Emergency facilities were reviewed and found to be satisfactor Emergency equipment and supplies were maintained in the same locations as previously maintained, namely the emergency equipment cabinets in the MURR lobby with backup tquipment in the Research Park Development Building (RPDB). Inventories have been performed in both locations within the required tim e as specified in Emergency

Procedure No. SEP- In the previous inspection one SCBA 'n the RPDB nad an outdated calibration ta There were only two SCBAs in the copy room, rather than the required thre The Emergency Locker Inventory Lists, as part of SEP-8, have been revised to list the number of items required and the number desired. The inspector verified that current inventories include three SCBAs in the MURR copy room and one SCBA in the RPOB with current calibration tags, as listed in STP-8. The corrective actions included a statement by the licensee that the Columbia Fire Department can re: pond within three minutes with a minimum of 10 SCBA The location and operation of the facility evacuation alarm, the reactor isolation alarm, the stack effluent monitors, and the radiation alarm monitors in the C;ntrol Room were examined and appeared to be satisfactor Based on the above review, this portion of the licensee's program is adequate, c. Emergency Notifications There have been no emergency conditions which would implement the emergency plan and result in any emergency classification since the previous inspection in August 1987. Procedures are available which

_- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _

. t

. [

specify which offsite support agencies should be contacted, including the NRC. The NRC will be notified within one hour after the event  ;

is classifie l Based on the above review, this portion of the Itcensee's program is  :

adequat (

d. Communicatiens I An emergency generator is available, if needed, for backup power to I the normal telephone system. This emergency generator will soon be replaced by a new emergency generator being installed behind the i reactor building. The new one will be more accessible for service i than is the present one. Other communication equipment include r two-way portable radios and the evacuation horn, which is also used '!

for reactor containment evacuation. Two-way radios were suggested l by the Itcensee as a more efficient method for communication between

< the Emergency Director onsite and his offsite support counterpart l 4 outside the MURR building during a drill or real event. The  !

counterpart would normally be an official of the Columbia Fire t Department. This use of the two-way radios proved beneficial in [

a recent drill with the Columbia Fire Departmen ;

When the emergency call list of telephone numbers was changed due to an employee telephone number change or deleted when an employee  !

is no longer employed, the posted copies were not annotated. This l is now being done. This concern was an improvement item from the i previous inspection. In addition, as described in Section 2.c.,

j the phone list loct.tions have also been cross-referenced in SEP-1.

l Based on the above review, this portion of the licensee's program is  !

adequat [

e. Emergency Plan Review f

The annual review of the plan and implementing procedures has been l conducted as required by the MURR Emergency Plan. Proposed changes (

to the plan include:

[ The last sentence on Page 12 of the plan titled, dEmergency l Action Levels," Section 5.1.1 should be revised from the l current statement, "Notification o' Unusual Events (NUEs) are j not expected to warrant emergency notifications of offsite i organizations." This could be misconstrued to mean that all l offsite response organizations would not be notified when an l NUE is declared, which may not have been the inten l Discussions with MURR management concluded that this statement '

was meant for emergency support organizations as the University I of Missouri Hospital, Police Department, Fire Department, etc., [

as listed in SEP-2, Page 3 of 5. The NRC, the Missouri State f I

!

,

,

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

___ _ _ . _ ~ .J

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

,..e

, Emergency Management Agency and American Nuclear Insurers are_____ __ always notified after an NUE (Reference SEP-1, Page 5 of 5) or any other emergency classificatio . Section 6.4, Decontamination Facilities, Paragraph 3, Page 17 of the plan currently lists the incorrect rooms, namely M-162-163 of the University of Missouri Hospital and Clinics (UKHC), for those personnel requiring extensive decontamination. The inspector learned that the room numbers were changed to M-162 to M-165 plus A-38, A-45 and/or A-18. These room numbers in the UMHC should also be listed in an appropriate implementing procedure which relates to the extensive decontamination performed outside the MURR facilit The licensee agreed to incorporate three changes as part of the next annual plan review and cpdat The Letter of Agreement with the Columbia Fire Department has been updated since the previous inspection and is curre:.t as of October 21, 1987. This agreement was signed by the City Manager of Columbia, Missouri on behalf of the Columbia Fire Departmen Based on the above review, this portion of the licensee's program is adequat . Exit Meeting The inspector held an exit meeting on October 20, 1988 at the conclusion l of the inspection. Those licensee representatives who attended are designated in Section 1 of this report. The inspector discussed the scope and findings of the inspectio The licensee indicated that no proprietary information was discussed .

during the exit intervie ,

f

!

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