ML19209A364

Responds to NRC 790816 Ltr Re Violations Noted in IE Insp Repts 50-062/79-01 & 50-396/79-01.Corrective Actions: Weekly Heat Balance Calibr Were Performed at 100% Power

ML19209A364
Person / Time
Site:	University of Virginia
Issue date:	09/06/1979
From:	Shriver B VIRGINIA, UNIV. OF, CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA
To:	James O'Reilly NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
Shared Package
ML19209A361	List: ML19209A364
References
NUDOCS 7910030655
Download: ML19209A364 (2)

Text

,

UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA y SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING AND APPLIED SCIENCE ,j j C H AR LOTTESVILLE. 22901 m ,

\) 7 n I:

DEPARTMENT OF N UCLEAR ENGINEERING AND ENGINEERING PHYSICS TELEPHON E 8045) ISS REACTOR FACILITY Sept. 6,1979 co Mr. James P. O'Reilly, Director -

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission - Region II C) 101 Marietta St N.W. Suite 3100 Atlanta, GA 30303 Re: NRC letter RII: EHW 50-62/79-01 50-396/79-01 Gentiemen:

This letter responds to the item of noncompliance identified in the reference letter as required by 10 CFR 2.201.

The item of noncompliance concerned the method used to calibrate the power range instruments. Specifically, the procedure required that the instrument readings be compared to the power determined using a primary system heat balance while operating at 100% power (2mw e ) . During the period of time noted in the inspectors report this heat balance calibration was performed at 87.5% of full Power (1.75 Mwt) instead of 100% power as specified by the procedure.

The use of the lower power during the heat balance calibration was necesi-tated by the requirements of the long term irradiation of pre.ssure vessel steels being performed as a part of a research project. The higher gamma heating of the steel specimens associated with full power operation is undesirable for even a short period of time. In addition, removal of the experiment from the reactor on a weekly basis to allow full power operation would increase the radiation exposure to the Facility Staff.

While i.he iten cited was not in full compliance with the procedure, we con-sider that it did not adversely affect the safe operation of the reactor. The actual procedure did confirm that the power range monitors were operable and showing acceptable response to a known value of reactor power.

Based on a review of the inspectors findings we have taken the following actions:

1. From the week of Jr4y 15,1979 through the week of August 20, 1979 the weekly heat balance calibrations were performed at 100% power as specified by the procedure. The experiment was not being irradi-ated during this period.

2.. During the week of August 27. 1979 a change to the procedure was ap-proved which allows performance of the heat balan'ce at h si than 100%

power if necessitated by experimental limitations. This frocedure provides an acceptable calibration of the power range instrumentation.

1091 2357810080 (s y OFFICT AT.COPYj,i

a4 .

a

3. All reactor' operators and senior operators have been requested to re-view the technical specifications and reactor operating procedures to ensure that they know the operating requirements and that they are followed. Possible changes to the operator requalification program will also be considered to strenghen this area.

Based on these actions we believe that we are in full compliance as of this date and that additional, similar items of noncompliance will not occur in the future.

Sincerely, i

'U. i%

B. L. Shriver , Director Reactor Facility BLS/mgs cc: Mr. R. C. Lewis, Acting Chief Reactor Operations and Nuclear Support Branch NRC - Region II Mr. E. H. Webster NRC - Region II Mr. Steve Ramos Division of Reactor Licensing NRC - Washington D.C.

Mr. J. P. Farrar 1091 236 o

e