IR 05000186/2006202

IR 05000186-06-202, on 06/19-22/2006, University of Missouri

ML062640500
Person / Time
Site:	University of Missouri-Columbia
Issue date:	09/22/2006
From:	Johnny H. Eads NRC/NRR/ADRA/DPR/PRTB
To:	Rhonda Butler Univ of Missouri - Columbia
Bassett C, NRR/DRIP/REXB, 404-562-4899
References
IR-06-202
Download: ML062640500 (16)

Text

September 22, 2006

Mr. Ralph Butler, DirectorResearch Reactor Center University of Missouri - Columbia Research Park Columbia, MO 65211

SUBJECT: NRC ROUTINE INSPECTION REPORT NO. 50-186/2006-202

Dear Mr. Butler:

On June 19 - 22, 2006, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) completed aninspection at your University of Missouri - Columbia Research Reactor facility. The enclosedreport documents the inspection results, which were discussed on June 22, 2006, with you and other members of your staff.The inspection examined activities conducted under your license as they relate to safety andcompliance with the Commission's rules and regulations and with the conditions of your license.

The inspector reviewed selected procedures and records, observed activities, and interviewed personnel. Based on the results of this inspection, no findings of significance were identified. In accordance with 10 CFR 2.390 of the NRC's "Rules of Practice," a copy of this letter, itsenclosure, and your response (if any) will be available electronically for public inspection in theNRC Public Document Room or from the Publicly Available Records (PARS) com ponent ofNRC's document system (ADAMS). ADAMS is accessible from the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html (the Public Electronic Reading Room).

Sincerely,/RA/

Johnny Eads, Branch ChiefResearch and Test Reactors Branch B Division of Policy and Rulemaking Office of Nuclear Reactor RegulationDocket No. 50-186License No. R-103

Enclosures:

NRC Inspection Report No. 50-186/2006-202cc w/enclosure: Please see next page University of Missouri-ColumbiaDocket No. 50-186 cc:

University of MissouriAssociate Director Research Reactor Facility Columbia, MO 65201A-95 CoordinatorDivision of Planning Office of Administration P.O. Box 809, State Capitol Building Jefferson City, MO 65101Mr. Ron Kucera, DirectorIntergovernmental Cooperation and Special Projects Missouri Department of Natural Resources

P.O. Box 176 Jefferson City, MO 65102Mr. Michael Chapman, DirectorMissouri Office of Homeland Security

P.O. Box 749 Jefferson City, MO 65102Test, Research, and Training Reactor Newsletter University of Florida 202 Nuclear Sciences Center Gainesville, FL 32611 September 22, 2006Mr. Ralph Butler, DirectorResearch Reactor Center University of Missouri - Columbia Research Park Columbia, MO 65211

SUBJECT: NRC ROUTINE INSPECTION REPORT NO. 50-186/2006-202

Dear Mr. Butler:

On June 19 - 22, 2006, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) completed aninspection at your University of Missouri - Columbia Research Reactor facility. The enclosedreport documents the inspection results, which were discussed on June 22, 2006, with you and other members of your staff.The inspection examined activities conducted under your license as they relate to safety andcompliance with the Commission's rules and regulations and with the conditions of your license.

The inspector reviewed selected procedures and records, observed activities, and interviewed personnel. Based on the results of this inspection, no findings of significance were identified. In accordance with 10 CFR 2.390 of the NRC's "Rules of Practice," a copy of this letter, itsenclosure, and your response (if any) will be available electronically for public inspection in theNRC Public Document Room or from the Publicly Available Records (PARS) com ponent ofNRC's document system (ADAMS). ADAMS is accessible from the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html (the Public Electronic Reading Room).

Sincerely,/RA/Johnny Eads, Branch ChiefResearch and Test Reactors Branch B Division of Policy and Rulemaking Office of Nuclear Reactor RegulationDocket No. 50-186License No. R-103

Enclosure:

NRC Inspection Report No. 50-186/2006-202cc w/enclosure: See next pageDISTRIBUTION

PUBLICPRTA r/fAAdamsCBassett PDoyleJEadsDHughesEHylton PIsaacCLyonMMendoncaJQuichocho WSchusterMVoth KWittPYoung DBarss (MS O6-H2)BDavis (Ltr only O5-A4)ACCESSION NO.: ML062640500TEMPLATE #: NRR-OFFICEPRT:RIPRT:LAPRT:BCNAMEMMendonca for CBassett:tls*EHylton*JEads:tls*DATE9/22/20069/22/20069/22/2006OFFICIAL RECORD COPY U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIONOFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATIONDocket No.:50-186License No.:R-103 Report No.:50-186/2006-202 Licensee:Curators of the University of Missouri - Columbia Facility:University of Missouri - Columbia Research Reactor Location:Research ParkColumbia, MissouriDates:June 19-22, 2006 Inspector:Craig BassettAccompanied by:Kamal TalhaApproved by:Johnny Eads, Branch ChiefResearch and Test Reactors Branch B Division of Policy and Rulemaking Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation EXECUTIVE SUMMARYUniversity of Missouri - ColumbiaUniversity of Missouri - Columbia Research Reactor Report No.: 50-186/2006-202The primary focus of this routine, announced inspection was the onsite review of selectedaspects of the licensee's 10 Megawatt, Class I research reactor safety programs including:

organizational structure and staffing, review and audit and design change functions, procedures, radiation protection, effluent and environmental monitoring, and transportation of radioactive materials since the last NRC inspection of these areas. The licensee's programs were acceptably directed toward the protection of public health and safety, and in compliance with NRC requirements.Organization and Staffing

!The licensee's organization and staffing were in compliance with the requirementsspecified in Technical Specifications Section 6.1.Review and Audit and Design Change Functions

!Review and oversight functions required by Technical Specifications Section 6.1 wereacceptably completed by the Reactor Advisory Committee.

!The design change program and procedures, which outlined the review and evaluationof changes to structures, components, and documentation of the facility and procedures satisfied NRC requirements.Radiation Protection

!Surveys were completed and documented as outlined in the Annual Report.

!Postings met regulatory requirements.

!Personnel dosimetry was being worn as required and recorded doses were within theNRC's regulatory limits.

!Radiation survey and monitoring equipment was being maintained and calibrated asrequired.

!The Radiation Protection and ALARA Programs satisfied regulatory requirements.

!Annual reviews of the Radiation Protection Program were being completed by thelicensee as required by 10 CFR Part 20.

!Radiation protection training was being conducted and was acceptable. Effluent and Environmental Monitoring

!Effluent monitoring satisfied license and regulatory requirements and releases werewithin the specified regulatory and Technical Specifications limits.

2Transportation of Radioactive Materials

!Radioactive material was being shipped in accordance with the applicable regulations.

REPORT DETAILSSummary of Plant StatusThe University of Missouri - Columbia Research Reactor (MURR) continued to be operated insupport of isotope production, silicon irradiation, reactor operator training, and various types ofresearch. During the inspection, the reactor was operated continuously during the week to support laboratory experiments and product irradiation.1. Organization and Staffinga.Inspection Scope (Inspection Procedure [IP] 69006)To verify that the staffing and organizational structure requirements were being met asspecified in Technical Specifications (TS), Section 6.1, Amendment No. 33, dated January 29, 2004, the inspector reviewed:*current MURR organizational structure*administrative controls and management responsibilities*MURR Reactor Operations Annual Reports for 2004 and 2005*operations and health physics staffing requirements for safe operation of thefacilityb.Observations and FindingsThe inspector noted that the organizational structure had not changed since the lastinspection in the area of radiation protection (refer to NRC Inspection Report No. 50-186/2005-201). The Reactor Operations group was fully staffed. The Health Physics (HP) section, within the Regulatory Assurance Group, was fully staffed with a Health Physics Manager, a Rad Waste Coordinator, two Health Physicists, and three HP technicians.The organization and staffing at the facility, required for reactor operation, were asspecified in the TS. Qualifications of the staff met program requirements. Review of records verified that management responsibilities were discharged as required byapplicable procedures. c.ConclusionsThe licensee's organization and staffing were in compliance with the requirementsspecified in TS Section 6.1.2.Review and Audit and Design Change Functionsa.Inspection Scope (IP 69007)In order to verify that the licensee had established and conducted reviews and auditsas required by 10 CFR Part 20 and TS Section 6.1, the inspector reviewed:*Radiological Control Procedures Audit for 2005*Radiation Protection Plan Audit for 2004 and 2005 2*Selected audits and reviews completed by various management and HealthPhysics (HP) personnel*Selected Subcommittee meeting minutes from March 2005 to the presentincluding the Isotope Use Subcommittee, the Reactor Safety Subcommittee, andthe Procedure Review Subcommittee*MURR Reactor Advisory Committee (RAC) meeting minutes, and relateddocuments, from May 2005 to the presentb.Observations and Findings(1) Review and Audit FunctionsThe inspector reviewed the meeting minutes of the RAC and the meeting minutesof various subcommittees from March 2005 to the present. The minutes, and associated documents, indicated that the committee met at the requiredfrequency and that a quorum was present. The topics considered during the meetings were appropriate and as stipulated in the TS. A subcommittee of the RAC or other designated persons, including HP personnel,conducted audits and reviews as required and the full RAC reviewed the results.

The inspector noted that no significant issues were identified during the audits conducted by the licensee. The inspector also verified that the licensee hadcompleted annual reviews of the Radiation Protection Program as required by 10 CFR Part 20. All aspects of the program had been reviewed. The inspector noted that the safety reviews and audits, and the associated findings, were acceptably detailed and that the licensee responded and took corrective actionsas needed. (2) Design Change FunctionsThe regulatory requirements stipulated in 10 CFR 50.59 were implemented at thefacility through MURR Procedures AP-RR-003 and AR-RO-115. The procedureswere developed to address activities that affected changes to the facility HazardsSummary Report (HSR), modifications to the facility, changes to MURRprocedures, new tests or experiments not described in the HSR, revisions to NRC approved analysis methodology, and/or proposed compensatory actions to address degraded or non-conforming conditions. The procedures adequately incorporated criteria provided by the regulations with additional requirements mandated by local conditions.The inspector reviewed selected Modification Records and 50.59 Screen Formsprocessed during 2005. The completed forms showed that the issues were acceptably reviewed in accordance with the procedures. It was noted that no 50.59 Evaluations were required to be completed to date in 2006. Also, none of the changes or modifications were determined to constitute a safety question or concern and none required a license or TS amendment.

3c.Conclusions Review and oversight functions required by the TS were acceptably completed by theRAC. Audits of various reactor operations and programs were being conducted. The design change program was comprehensive and satisfied NRC requirements. 3. Radiation Protectiona.Inspection Scope (IP 69012)The inspector reviewed the following to verify compliance with 10 CFR Part 20 and theapplicable licensee TS requirements and procedures: *MURR dosimetry records for 2005*radiation protection training program records

• Dose Report Review Forms for January - May 2006

• MURR Reactor Operations Annual Reports for 2004 and 2005*Selected radiation and contamination survey records for the past year

• Radiological signs and posting in various facility laboratories and in the BeamPort Floor area*Calibration and periodic check records for selected radiation survey andmonitoring instruments for the past two years* MURR Center Security, Emergency, and Health Physics Indoctrination Booklet*selected MURR Corrective Action Program (CAP) reports concerning radiationprotection issues*Semi-Annual Calibration of the NMC-RAK Stack Monitor, dated March 24, 2005

• MURR Procedure AP-HP-105, "Radiation Work Permit," Rev. 4, datedOctober 21, 2005, and the associated form, Form FM-17, "Radiation WorkPermit"*MURR Procedure AP-HP-117, "MURR Initial Radiation Worker TrainingProgram," Rev. 7, dated January 30, 2006, and the associated forms, Form FM-

26, "MURR Training Questionnaire," and Form FM-29, "Initial Training Packet"*MURR Procedure AP-HP-119, "High Radiation Area Access," Rev. 1, datedMarch 24, 2006*MURR Procedure AP-HP-125, "Review of Unplanned Radiation Exposure,"Rev. 1, dated June 2, 2005*MURR Procedure IC-HP-300, "Calibration - Radiation Survey Instruments," Rev.4, dated March 24, 2006, and the associated form, Form FM-62, "RadiationInstrument Certificate of Calibration"*MURR Procedure IC-HP-333, "Calibration - Eberline BC-4 Beta Swipe Counter,"Rev. 4, dated January 30, 2006*MURR Procedure IC-HP-335, "Calibration - Portal Monitor Gamma-60- S/N 900644," Rev. 6, dated March 24, 2006*MURR Procedure OP-HP-220, "Tritium Bioassay," Rev. 3, dated August 18, 2005*MURR Procedure RP-HP-100, "Contamination Monitoring - Performing a Swipe,"Rev. 3, dated December 19, 2005*MURR Procedure RP-HP-120, "Personnel Radioactive Contamination," Rev. 4,dated March 24, 2006, and the associated forms, Form FM-54, "Report of Personnel Contamination," and Form FM-76, "Personnel Contamination Log"*MURR Procedure SV-HP-119, "Property Release," Rev. 2, dated March 24, 2006 4The inspector also toured the licensee's facility, conducted a radiation survey inlaboratory areas of the reactor building, and witnessed the use of dosimetry and survey meters. Licensee personnel were interviewed as well.b.Observations and Findings(1)SurveysDaily, monthly, and other periodic contamination and radiation surveys, outlined inthe licensee's Reactor Operations Annual Report for 2005, were completed by HP staff members. Any contamination detected in concentrations above established action levels was noted and the areas were decontaminated. Results of the surveys were typically documented on survey maps and posted at the entrances of the various areas surveyed so that facility workers would be knowledgeable ofthe radiological conditions that existed therein.During the inspection the inspector accompanied a health physics technician on aroutine radiation survey of laboratory areas throughout the reactor building. The radiation levels noted by the inspector using an NRC survey meter were similar to those detected by the licensee and listed on survey maps of the areas. Noanomalies were noted. (2)Postings and NoticesCopies of current notices to workers were posted in appropriate areas in thefacility. Radiological signs and survey maps were typically posted at theentrances to controlled areas. Other postings also showed the industrial hygiene hazards that were present in the areas as well. The copies of NRC Form-3 noted at the facility were the latest issue, as required by 10 CFR Part 19, and wereposted in various areas throughout the facility such as on the main bulletin board,in main hallways, and at the entrance to the Beam Port Floor area. (3)DosimetryThe inspector determined that the licensee used optically stimulated luminescent(OSL) dosimetry for whole body monitoring and thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs) in the form of finger rings and wrist badges for extremity monitoring. The dosimetry was supplied and processed by a National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program accredited vendor. An examination of the OSL results indicating radiological exposures at the facility for the past year showed that the highest occupational doses, as well as doses to the public, were within 10 CFR Part 20 limits. The records showed that approximately half of the facilitypersonnel received occupational exposures of zero (0) to only a few millirem abovebackground. The highest annual whole body exposure received by a single individual for 2005 was 1,175 millirem deep dose equivalent (DDE). The highestannual extremity exposure for 2005 was 3,670 millirem shallow dose equivalent(SDE). Review of exposure records showed that the Reactor Operations group received approximately 60% of the facility's annual dose for 2005. The facility alsocollected and analyzed urine samples for Tritium (H-3) bioassay purposes. The 5highest attributable dose in 2005 for H-3 was 1 millirem committed effective doseequivalent (CEDE). Through direct observation the inspector determined that dosimetry wasacceptably used by facility and contractor personnel. The inspector also verifiedthat no unplanned single exposures (greater than 5% of any federal regulatory limit) had occurred during the previous year.(4)Radiation Monitoring EquipmentExamination of selected radiation monitoring equipment indicated that theinstruments had the acceptable up-to-date calibration sticker attached. The instrument calibration records indicated that the calibration of certain portable survey meters (friskers) was typically completed by licensee staff personnel.

Other instruments, such as high range ion chambers and neutron detectors that could not be calibrated by the licensee, were shipped to vendors for calibration.

Calibration frequency met procedural requirements and records were maintained as required. Area Radiation Monitors (ARMs) and stack monitors were also being calibrated as required. These monitors were typically calibrated by licensee staff personnel.(5)Radiation Protection ProgramThe licensee's Radiation Protection and ALARA programs were established anddescribed in the MURR Radiation Protection Program Manual dated April 19,2006, and through the various HP procedures that had been reviewed and approved. The programs contained instructions concerning organization, training, monitoring, personnel responsibilities, and audits. The programs, as outlined andestablished, appeared to be acceptable. The inspector verified that annual reviews of the Radiation Protection Program were being completed by the licensee as required by 10 CFR Part 20. The ALARA program, which was consistent with the guidance in 10 CFR Part 20, provided instructions to and guidance for keeping doses as low as reasonably achievable.(6)Radiation Work Permit ProgramThe inspector reviewed all Radiation Work Permits (RWPs) that had been written,used, and closed out during 2005 and the first part of 2006. It was noted that theinstructions specified in MURR Procedure AP-HP-105, "Radiation Work Permit,"Rev. 2, dated October 28, 2003, Attachment 7.1, and those on the associatedforms (Form FM-17, "Radiation Work Permit Instructions") had been adequately followed. Appropriate review by management and health physics personnel had been completed. The controls specified in the RWPs were acceptable and applicable for the type of work being done. (7)Radiation Protection TrainingThe inspector reviewed the training given to MURR staff members, to those whoare not on staff but who are authorized to use the experimental facilities of the 6reactor, and to visitors. The training satisfied the requirements of 10 CFR Part 19and the training program was acceptable. It was noted that the annual refreshertraining for all staff personnel had been conducted during the months of September through November 2005.(8)Facility ToursThe inspector toured the Hot Cell area, Beam Port Floor area, and selectedsupport laboratories with licensee representatives on various occasions. The inspector noted that facility radioactive material storage areas were properlyposted. No unmarked radioactive material was noted. Radiation and High Radiation Areas were posted as required and properly controlled.c.ConclusionsThe inspector determined that the Radiation Protection and ALARA Programs, asimplemented by the licensee, satisfied regulatory requirements because: 1) surveyswere completed and documented acceptably to permit evaluation of the radiationhazards present; 2) postings met regulatory requirements; 3) personnel dosimetry was being worn as required and recorded doses were within the NRC's regulatory limits;4) radiation survey and monitoring equipment was being maintained and calibrated as required; 5) the Radiation Protection Program was acceptable and was being reviewed annually as required; and, 6) the radiation protection training program was acceptable.4. Effluent and Environmental Monitoringa.Inspection Scope (IP 69004)

The inspector reviewed the following to verify compliance with the requirements of 10CFR Part 20 and TS Section 3.7:*Monthly ALARA Environmental Review Reports for 2006*MURR Reactor Operations Annual Reports for 2004 and 2005*Liquid Batch Release Review Forms for 2006 associated with the Monthly ALARAEnvironmental Review Reports*the environmental monitoring program outlined through various procedures

• MURR Procedure IC-HP-310, "Calibration - Eberline Model PING 1A Stack Monitor- Particulate Channel," Rev. 4, dated February 10, 2006*MURR Procedure IC-HP-311, "Calibration - Eberline Model PING 1A Stack Monitor- Iodine Channel," Rev. 4, dated February 10, 2006*MURR Procedure IC-HP-312, "Calibration - Eberline Model PING 1A Stack Monitor- Gas Channel," Rev. 4, dated February 10, 2006*MURR Procedure OP-HP-200, "Air Sampling - Containment Building Tritium,"Rev. 1, dated November 25, 2003*MURR Procedure OP-HP-221, "Environmental Sample - Analysis," Rev. 4, datedMarch 24, 2006*MURR Procedure OP-HP-222, "Air Sampling - Containment Building Ar-41,"Rev. 2, dated December 19, 2005 7*MURR Procedure OP-HP-353, "Waste Tank Sample - Analysis," Rev. 3, datedSeptember 16, 2005*MURR Procedure SV-HP-121, "Building Exhaust Stack Effluent - Ar-41Monitoring," Rev. 2, dated March 24, 2006b.Observations and FindingsThe inspector determined that gaseous releases continued to be monitored asrequired, were acceptably analyzed, and were documented in the annual operatingreports. Airborne concentrations of gaseous releases were well within the concentrations stipulated in 10 CFR 20, Appendix B, Table 2, and TS limits. The dose rate to the public, as a result of the gaseous releases, was below the dose constraint specified in 10 CFR 20.1101(d) of 10 millirem per year. COMPLY code resultsindicated an annual dose to the public of 4.3 millirem for 2004. Data for 2005 indicatedan annual dose to the public of 4.1 millirem. By applying an occupancy factor for eachyear (occupancy factor of 0.24), the resulting annual dose to the public for 2004 was 1.0 millirem and for 2005 the annual dose to the public was 0.98 millirem. The liquid releases from the facility to the sanitary sewer also conti nued to bemonitored as required, were acceptably analyzed, and were documented in the annual reports. The inspector noted that the results were within the limits specified in 10 CFR 20, Appendix B, Table 3.Environmental soil, water, and vegetation samples were collected, prepared, andanalyzed consistent with procedural requirements. On-site and off-site gamma radiation monitoring was completed using the reactor facility stack effluent monitor andvarious environmental TLDs in accordance with the applicable procedures as well. The review of data indicated that there were no measurable doses above any regulatorylimits. The highest unrestricted area dose rate was located on the University golf course near the 12 th tee approximately 65 meters from the MURR stack and read 95millirem for 2005. c.ConclusionEffluent monitoring satisfied license and regulatory requirements and releases werewithin the specified regulatory and TS limits.5. Transportationa.Inspection Scope (IP 86740)To verify compliance with regulatory and procedural requirements for transferring orshipping licensed radioactive material, the inspector reviewed the following:*selected records of various types of radioactive material shipments*selected training records for staff personnel authorized to ship hazardous materialin accordance with the regulations specified by the DOT, IATA, and ICAO*MURR Procedure AP-SH-001, "Administrative Procedure, Radioactive MaterialsShipping," Rev. 3, dated January 11, 2006 8*MURR Procedure BPB-SH-002, "20WC-1 Packaging and Shipment of Type BNon-Waste Radioactive Material," Rev. 6, dated January 11, 2006*MURR Procedure BPB-SH-005, "DOT 6M Packaging and Shipment of Type BNon-Waste Radioactive Material," Rev. 3, dated November 30, 2005*MURR Procedure BPB-SH-008, "Type B(U) F-327 Series Packaging of Type BNon-Waste Radioactive Material," Rev. 3, dated October 20, 2005*MURR Procedure BP-SH-007, "F-327 Packaging and Shipment of Type A Non-Waste Radioactive Material," Rev. 2, dated June 16, 2006*MURR Procedure BP-SH-010, "Packaging and Shipment of Non-WasteRadioactive Materials in Excepted Packages," Rev. 1, dated November 30, 2005*MURR Procedure BP-SH-011, "Shipment of Non-Waste DOT 7A Type A(Gemstore) Radioactive Material Package," Rev. 1, dated October 20, 2005*MURR Procedure BP-SH-013, "Packaging and Shipment of Radioactive MaterialUsing MURR Reusable Type A Package," Rev. 1, dated April 17, 2006*MURR Procedure BP-SH-014, "Packaging and Shipment of Radioactive MaterialUsing an Overpack," Rev. 0, dated March 7, 2006*MURR Procedure BP-SH-052, "Radioactive Material Shipment PackageDocumentation and Labeling," Rev. 0, dated June 16, 2006*MURR Procedure BP-SH-099, "Packaging of Radioactive Material Using MURRModel 1500," Rev. 0, dated October 20, 2005*MURR Procedure WMB-SH-005, "Shipment of Type B Radioactive Waste UsingChem-Nuclear System 1-13G Cask," Rev. 3, dated August 16, 2005*MURR Procedure WM-SH-011, "Shipment of Radioactive Material, Hot Cell HostCans Waste," Rev. 2, dated January 11, 2006 *MURR Procedure WM-SH-100, "Radioactive Waste - Preparation and Storage,"Rev. 3, dated June 1, 2005 *MURR Procedure WM-SH-300, "MURR Exclusive Use Shipment of LSA or SCORadioactive Waste," Rev. 2, dated August 16, 2005b.Observations and FindingsThrough records review and discussions with licensee personnel, the inspectordetermined that the licensee had shipped spent fuel and other types of radioactive material since the previous inspection in this area. The records indicated that the radioisotope types and quantities were calculated and dose rates measured as required. All radioactive material shipment records reviewed by the inspector had been completed in accordance with Department of Transportation (DOT) and NRC regulations. The inspector verified that the licensee maintained copies of shipment recipients'licenses to possess radioactive material as required and that the licenses were verified to be current prior to initiating a shipment. The training of the staff members responsible for shipping the material was also reviewed. The inspector verified that the shippers' had had training covering the DOT, IATA, and ICAO requirements.The inspector observed a shipment of radioactive material from the facility as well. The shipment was classified as Yellow-III and was contained in Type A packaging. The inspector verified that the shipping papers contained the appropriate information and that the appropriate markings were made on the outside of the package. Proper 9techniques were followed in conducting surveys of the package and the qualityassurance checks of the shipments. The staff conducting these shipments wereknowledgeable of their duties and conducted a thorough review of all documentation.c.ConclusionsRadioactive material was being shipped in accordance with the applicable regulations.6. Follow-up on Previously Identified Itemsa.Inspection Scope (IP 69012)The inspector reviewed actions concerning various Inspector Follow-up Items (IFIs)identified during an inspection in April 2005.b.Observations and Findings(1) (Closed) IFI 50-186/2005-202-01 - Follow-up on the completion of an audit of theALARA program for 2004 as described in the Radiation Protection Program Manual dated March 1, 2004.During the NRC inspection at the facility in April 2005, the inspector noted that, aspart of the radiation protection program, an audit of the ALARA program is typically conducted on an annual basis. The licensee did not complete this audit for 2004 and was in the process of completing the document during that inspection. During this inspection, the inspector reviewed the status of the audit of the ALARAprogram for 2004. The audit had been completed as required. The inspector also reviewed the audit of the ALARA program for 2005. The audits were comprehensive and explained the reasons for each group's increase or decrease in dose for that year. This item is considered closed.(2) (Closed) IFI 50-186/2005-202-02 - Follow-up to ensure that diagnostic and sourcealarm checks for the facility portal monitors are conducted and properlydocumented on a weekly basis. During the inspection in April 2005, the inspector reviewed weekly checks for theportal monitors throughout the facility. It was noted that a portion of the l obbyportal monitor printouts that verify the weekly checks could not be located. Weekly diagnostic and source alarm checks were missing in between the dates ofNovember 19, 2004 to December 2, 2004, January 21, 2005 to February 10, 2005 and March 2, 2005 to March 24, 2005. MURR Procedure IC-HP-335, "Calibration -Portal Monitor Gamma-60 - S/N 900644," specifies that this check must be conducted on a weekly basis, not to exceed nine days. The licensee indicated that

the checks had been made but that the forms were apparently missing. Theinspector noted that the completion of the checks was indicated on weeklyassignment sheets which were initialed by the HP Technicians who had been assigned that responsibility during the weeks in question. Even though the checkswere apparently completed, the issue of properly maintaining the lobby portal 10monitor printouts was noted by the NRC as an Inspector Follow-up Item (IFI) andwas reviewed during this inspection. During this inspection, the inspector reviewed the printout sheets documenting thediagnostic and source alarm checks for the portal monitors. The c hecks had beencompleted weekly as required and the proper data was recorded. This item is considered closed.(3) (Closed) IFI 50-186/2005-202-03 - Follow-up on the development of alternatemethods to reduce Ar-41 emissions below facility investigational levels. During the April 2005 NRC inspection, the inspector noted that, the main isotopebeing emitted from the facility stack was Argon-41, which is an activation productof air. The licensee set investigational levels for emitted isotopes at 85% of the annual TS limit to be reviewed on a monthly basis. The average concentration for Ar-41 release for several months in 2004 exceeded these levels and the licensee analyzed it as required by procedure. Since the licensee could not reduce this particular emission from the facility without affecting research and development,the licensee indicated that they would continue investigating alternate methods ofreducing Ar-41 emissions. During this inspection, the inspector reviewed the various actions and proposalstaken and made by the licensee in an attempt to reduce Ar-41 levels. Beam Port B collimator had been repaired during the Be Changeout that occurred early in2006 and potentially split reflector wedges were replaced. Also, the building exhaust relief damper was repaired to bring reactor exhaust flow characteristics back to design parameters. This resulted in a 10% decrease in Ar-41 concentration. The licensee has made efforts to ensure that the exhaust damper position does not move significantly over time. Future plans are to investigate the amount of air that is trapped in silicon samples. Also, the licensee plans toinvestigate the feasibility of a nitrogen bleed system for the pneumatic tube systemand is considering changing the pneumatic tube blower inlet position back to the basement area from the cold deck. Because the licensee has been looking at and continues to concentrate on the problem of Ar-41 emissions, this item will beclosed.(4) (Closed) IFI 50-186/2005-202-04 - Follow-up to determine the licensee's actionsconcerning assigning a value of zero instead of a negative number for the summation of the annual environmental TLD summary.During the inspection in April 2005, the inspector noted that, environmental soil,water, and vegetation samples were collected, prepared, and analyzed consistent with procedural requirements. On-site and off-site gamma radiation monitoring was completed using the reactor facility stack effluent monitor and variousenvironmental TLDs in accordance with the applicable procedures as well. The inspector reviewed the calculations for the annual environmental TLD summary and noticed that negative doses are being added into the year end doses.

General health physics practice dictates that assigning a negative number to a 11dose is unacceptable. The licensee was asked to consider assigning a dose ofzero instead of a negative number to prevent any confusion on this subject.During this inspection, the inspector reviewed the MURR Reactor OperationsAnnual Report for 2005. It was noted that the environmental TLD summary totals were listed as positive numbers or as a dose of zero. The licensee plans to continue to use this format. This item is considered closed.(5) (Closed) IFI 50-186/2005-202-05 - Follow-up on the removal of the requirement tolabel limited surface activity packages with the appropriate LSA number (i.e. LSA-I, LSA-II or LSA-III) in MURR Procedure WM-SH-300, "Exclusive Use Shipment ofLSA or SCO Radioactive Waste," Rev. 1, dated July 1, 2004, Section 3, Step 4.a. During the April 2005 inspection, the inspector observed a shipment of radioactivewaste from the facility as well as several radioisotopes. The shipment ofradioactive waste was classified as limited surface activity and therefore was exempt from marking and labeling requirements as specified in 49 CFR 173.427(a)(6)(vi). The inspector verified that this shipment was conducted as an exclusive use shipment and saw that the proper precautions were taken by the licensee and the carrier. During review of Attachment 10.1 to Procedure WM-SH-

300, which is the procedural checklist for shipment of LSA radioactive waste, the inspector noted that there were additional requirements (Section 3, Step 4.a) forlabeling the package with the appropriate LSA number (i.e. LSA-I, LSA-II or LSA-

III). The inspector noted that this is not required by the regulations nor is itpracticed by the licensee. The licensee agreed to modify the procedure to accurately reflect what is currently practiced in accordance with Federal Transportation regulations.During this inspection, the inspector reviewed Attachment 10.1 to Procedure WM-SH-300. It was noted that the checklist had been changed to eliminate the requirement for labeling the package with an LSA number. This item is considered closed.c.ConclusionsFive IFIs were reviewed and closed during this inspection.7. Exit InterviewThe inspection scope and results were summarized on June 22, 2006, with members oflicensee management and staff. The inspector described the areas inspected and discussed in detail the inspection findings. The licensee did not identify any of the material provided to or reviewed by the inspector during the inspection as proprietary. No dissenting comments were received from the licensee.

PARTIAL LIST OF PERSONS CONTACTEDLicenseeM. Ballew, Health Physics Technician IIK. Brooks, Associate Director, Product and Service Operations R. Butler, Director of MURR M. Diaz de Leon, Health Physicist R. Dobey, Health Physics Manager J. Ernst, Associate Director, Regulatory Assurance Group L. Foyto, Reactor Manager A. Gaddy, Compliance Specialist S. Kelley, Health Physics Technician II M. Kilfoil, Senior Reactor Service Project Specialist/Shipping Manager K. Kutikkad, Assistant Reactor Manager, Physics C. McKibben, Senior Advisor R. Maxey, Health Physics Specialist/Shipping Technician S. Meier, Manager, Radioactive Materials Shipping W. Meyer, Chief Operating Officer M. Nichols, Health Physics Technician/Shipping Technician D. Nickolaus, Health Physics TechnicianN. Pearson, Health Physics Technician/Shipping Technician C. Roberts, Interim Shipping Manager R. Taylor, Radioactive Waste CoordinatorINSPECTION PROCEDURES USEDIP 69004:Class 1 Research and Test Reactor Effluent and Environmental MonitoringIP 69006:Class 1 Research and Test Reactor Organization, Operations, andMaintenance ActivitiesIP 69007:Class 1 Research and Test Reactor Review and Audit and Design ChangeFunctionsIP 69012:Class 1 Research and Test Reactor Radiation Protection IP 86740:Inspection of Transportation ActivitiesOPENED, CLOSED, AND DISCUSSED OpenedNoneClosed50-186/2005-201-01IFI Follow-up on the completion of an audit of the ALARA program for2004 as described in the Radiation Protection Program Manual dated March 1, 2004.

50-186/2005-201-02IFI Follow-up to ensure that diagnostic and source alarm checks for thefacility portal monitors are conducted and properly documented on aweekly basis.50-186/2005-201-03IFI Follow-up on the development of alternate methods to reduce Ar-41emissions below facility investigational levels. 50-186/2005-201-04IFI Follow-up to determine the licensee's actions concerning assigning avalue of zero instead of a negative number for the summation of the annual environmental TLD summary.50-186/2005-201-05IFI Follow-up on the removal of the requirement to label limited surfaceactivity packages with the appropriate LSA number (i.e. LSA-I, LSA-

II or LSA-III) in MURR Procedure WM-SH-300, "Exclusive UseShipment of LSA or SCO Radioactive Waste," Rev. 1, dated July 1, 2004, Section 3, Step 4.a. LIST OF ACRONYMS USEDARMArea Radiation MonitorALARAAs low as reasonably achievable CEDECommitted effective dose equivalent CFRCode of Federal Regulations DDEDeep dose equivalent DOTDepartment of Transportation HPHealth physics HSRHazards Summary Report IATAInternational Air Transport Association ICAOInternational Civil Aviation Organization IFIInspector Follow-up Item IPInspection Procedure LSALimited Surface Activity mCiMillicurie MURRUniversity of Missouri - Columbia Research Reactor NRCNuclear Regulatory Commission OSLOptically stimulated luminescent (dosimeter)

PDRPublic Document Room RACReactor Advisory Committee RWPRadiation Work Permit SDEShallow dose equivalent TLDThermoluminescent dosimeter TSTechnical Specification