IR 05000262/1987001

Ack Receipt of Responding to Violations Noted in Insp Rept 50-262/87-01.Addl Info on Violation a Re Operational Limitations & Restrictions for Surveillances Performed Requested

ML20215M653
Person / Time
Site:	05000262
Issue date:	05/08/1987
From:	Fisher W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV)
To:	Stohlton J Brigham Young University, PROVO, UT
References
NUDOCS 8705140075
Download: ML20215M653 (3)

Text

, .- .--__ _ _ __ ___ _ _ . _ _ _ _ ._ .____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

. .. w M 8 1987 In. Reply Refer To:

Docket: 50-262/87-01 Brigham Young University

-- ATTN: Dr. J. B. Stohlton, Executive .

Vice-President

.Provo, Utah. 84602 Gentlemen:

-Thank you for your letter of April 8,1987, in response to our letter and the attached Notice of Violation dated March 12, 1987. Your response was also discussed during a telephone conversation between Mr. F. W. Nelson and

~Mr. Dean Chaney of:this office on April 27, 1987. As a result of our review, we find that additional information is needed. Specifically, the response directed in. Appendix A, " Notice of Violation" transmitted with our letter of '

March 16, 1987, requires that the Brigham Young University provide a_ written

statement.or explanation in reply for each violation regarding: (1) the reason for the violation if admitted,'(2) the corrective steps which have been taken

and the results achieved, (3) the corrective steps which will be taken to avoid further violations, and (4) the date when full compliance will be achieved.

.Your letter of April 8, 1987, did not contain the required information for the violation listed below:

'

Restatement of-Violation A

.

Technical Specifications (TS) Sectior, II, " Operational Limitations and

Restrictions," states that the following surveillances will be performed

.

i Section II.C, Surveillances:

2. The safety circuits in Table I, items 7 and 8, shall be checked to be operable at least annually.

(Items 1, 3, and 4 only apply during operation of the reactor.)

5. Control rod drop times shall be measured at least semiannually.

! 6. A calibration measurement of control rod worths shall be l' performed at least annually.

7. A calibration measurement of the power measuring channels shall be performed at least annually. ,

i Contrary to the above, the NRC inspector determined on February 3, 1987, that the licensee had not performed the required safety system

surveillances since May 11,'1982.

.

RIV:FRPS C:FRPS C:R&SPE i

'

HDChaney/j BMurray WLFisher f/yB7 5~/g/87

.C/f /87 ,

'

0705140075 870008 2 /g 8, DR ADOCK 9000 , g

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

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ - _ - - _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _

...w Brigham Young University -2-Summary of Licensee's Response to Violation A The licensee ; stated that .the reactor had not been operated since May 1982, the two senior reactor operators are no longer licensed to do reactor operations,.and there.is no practical reason for doing the surveillance indicated if the~ reactor is not operated.

NRC Evaluation of Licensee's Response The licensee neither admits or denies the apparent violation. The licensee's response implied that the violation did occur, but the licensee

.

did not address corrective measures to be taken to prevent further violations and when full compliance will be achieved. It is the NRC's position that the current license conditions and Technical Specification requirements are in effect until such time as the licensee requests _and receives NRC approval concerning any amendments to the existing-requirements. Therefore, the violation remains as proposed.

We have reviewed your reply for violations B and C and find it responsive to the concerns raised in our Notice of Violation. We will review the

~ implementation of your corrective actions during a future inspection to

. determine that full compliance has been achieved and will be maintained.

Sincerely, Original Signed By:

WILLIAM L FISHER William L. Fisher, Chief-Radiological and Safeguards Programs Branch cc:

Dr. G. Mason College of Physical & Mathematical Sciences Brigham Young University Provo, Utah 84602

.W. R. Hansen Campus Safety Office Brigham Young University Provo, Utah 84602 F. W. Nelson Campus Safety Office - Radiation Safety Brigham Young University Provo, Utah 84602 Bureau of Radiation Control Department of Health P. O. Box 16700

. Salt Lake City, Utah 84116-070

.

. ,- 0 Brigham Young University -3-bec to DMB (IE01)

bec distrib. by RIV:

RPB R. D. Martin, RA R&SPB D. Weiss, RM/ALF RIV File DRSP.

RSB MIS SYSTEM RSTS Operator Inspector Section Chief W. L. Fisher R. L. Bangart R. E. Hall H. N. Berkow, NRR

_

- . '

.c

,

-

l h$gng,2 iill M y 9,

,, n APR I 51967 :

>! ,

(

e., Brigham Young University [\ 3y a k khn B.$tohlum Ip! hetutneWe President April 8, 1987 J.E. Gagliardo, Chief Reactor Projects Branch Nuclear Regulatory Commission 611 Ryan Plaza Dr., Suite 1000 Arlington, TX 76011 Re: Docket 50-262/87-01

Dear Mr. Gagliardo:

This letter is in response to your letter of 12 March 1987 reporting-on the finding of an inspection of our L-77 Reactor Facility on the 2nd and 3rd of February 1987. Three items of noncompliance were noted in your letter. The action taken and the current st.atus of Brigham Young University's position relative to -

-

these items are summarized below.

A. Failure to perform surveillances.

All four of the items listed require that the reactor be operated. No reactor operations whatsoever have occurred since May 1982, and the two senior reactor R. Dixon and Gary L.

operators at our facility, Dwight Jensen, are no longer licensed to do any reactor operations. According to their NRC licenses, they are specifically prohibited from doing any reactor operations except for fuel handling and decommissioning activities.

The surveillances therefore cannot legally be performed.

In addition, there is no practical reason whatsoever for doing the surveillances indicated if the reactor is not operated. The control rods are fully inserted now, and performance of the surveillances would only give rise to an additional hazard.

B. Failure to perform the biennial review of the physical security plan.

It has been nearly five years since the reactor was operated, and Brigham Young University has been trying to get the reactor decommissioned during the same time period.

During this time personnel changes and the switching of duties of the now defunct Reactor Safety Committee to the Radiation Safety Committee were perhaps University responsible for the slip-up on the review of the security plan. At the meeting on 4 March, 1987 of the University I

n Y * ' ^ ^ '!f

'

8.iesa sna .m vc c aune?,,i$v'er2ui.884eo2

<8on 378.se2s 9,

'

11 l

& T1

. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

. ,,

,

.

J. March 31, 1987 Page 2 Radiation Safety Committee, a review of the security plan was made. It is felt that the security plan is adequate.

Furthermore, the committee interpreted 10 CFR 73.6(a) as exempting us from the security plan requirement, since the enrichment of our fuel is less than 20%.

C. Failure to secure the inner nuclear laboratory door.

The outer door to the reactor building was locked on 3 February 1987, but the inner door was not, it appeared to be closed, but the lock was not engaged. However, we note that the inner door was sufficiently closed that the burglar-alarm system was in operation.

The position of the burglar-alarm switch was adjusted following the inspection so the alarm system triggers much

- earlier than it did on 3 February 1987. This should p.revent any future occurrences of this sort.

_

.

~ ~

Brigham Young University feels that it is now in full compliance insofar as items B and C are concerned. There is no legal way for the University to ' comply with item A. Since we expect to have the reactor fuel removed within two months, it is strongly recommended that the surveillance tests not be required at this time. To do so would require further licensing, which would be unnecessarily costly in time, money, and safety.

Also, according to Appendix B, page 2, paragraph 2 of your letter we are to keep the NRC regional office informed of the core unloading schedule. We have just been advised by Mr. R.D. Denney, Manager Fuel Handling and Storage Facilities. Westinghouse Idaho Nuclear Company, Inc. that we can ship our material to them during the last week of April or the first week of May 1987. We will inform you when we have an exact date.

I hope that this information will satisfactorily answer your letter.

If you should need more information please let us know.

Sincerely

', '

J6~h ton Executive Vice-President

/

/ cc Eugene H. Bramhall

'

General Counsel v