ML19257A449

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Responds to NRC 791109 Ltr Re Violation Noted in IE Insp Rept 50-148/79-02.Asserts That Facility Was in Compliance W/Tech Specs When Reactor Operated W/Substitute Instrument
ML19257A449
Person / Time
Site: 05000148
Issue date: 12/07/1979
From: Kraft D
KANSAS, UNIV. OF, LAWRENCE, KS
To: Madsen G
NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV)
Shared Package
ML19257A446 List:
References
NUDOCS 8001040312
Download: ML19257A449 (2)


Text

E r1 3' ]

? df

o s . ,

  • THE UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS School of Engineering Office of the Dean 4010 Learned Hall. Lawrence, Kansas 66045 913-864-3881 December 7,1979 Mr. G. L. Madsen, Chief Reactor Operations and Nuclear Support Branch US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region IV 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 1000 Arlington, Texas 76012

Dear Mr. Madsen:

After consultation with Dr. Russell Mesler, I wish to reply to your letter of November 9 referring to an inspection of our facilities. I wish to comment on the Notice of Violation attached to your letter.

The Notice of Violation claims an infraction occurred in the operation of the nuclear reactor because the reactor was operated with a substitute instrument without prior review by our Nuclear Reactor Committee. The notice cites Technical Specification J.2 which reads: "The Nuclear Reactor Committee shall be responsible for the review of:" This notice does not specify when the review is to occur. Also please note that items a through c read:

"a. Operation of a nuclear reactor

b. Conformity of operations with Technical Specifications
c. Unusual incidents and occurances".

It is not possible to interpret J.2 as requiring review in advance for these items . For example, how could the committee conduct a prior review of un-usual incidences and occurrences? Why then, should it be interpreted as review in advance for items d and e?

When the reactor was started up with the new instrument the approved procedure required that a counting rate of 2 counts per second be obtained in the channel using the new instrument. This procedure was followed.

1685 504 Main Campus. Lawrence College of Health Sciences and Hospital Kansas City and Wichita 80 01040 g l 1

s Mr. G. L. Madsen December 7.1979 Page 2 The committee has since reviewed the use of the new instrument and everything is satisfactory.

There can be no doubt that we were in compliance and are still in compliance. Thank you for your attention to this response.

Sincerely ,

David C. Kraft Dean pc cc: Dr. Russell Mesler 1685 305