ML20035C608
| ML20035C608 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | University of Lowell, 07000738 |
| Issue date: | 04/06/1993 |
| From: | Kegel G MASSACHUSETTS, UNIV. OF, LOWELL, MA (FORMERLY LOWELL |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9304080177 | |
| Download: ML20035C608 (7) | |
Text
.
tintversity of Massacfmsetts Loweff Rcuffation Laboratory
'1,14niversittj Avenue l
LowcE, Massacfmsetts, 018S4 j
(S08) 954-3280 April 6,1993 Dockett No. 50-223 70-738 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attn:
Document Control Desk Washington, D.C.
20555 Subject - Reply to a Notice of Violation Gentle-men:
This letter is in response to the Notice of Violation resulting from the NRC inspection nos. 50-223/93-01 and 70-738/93-01 conducted on February 8-10, 1993.
Violation A l
1.
Reasons for the violation:
It appears that the Reactor Supervisor failed to submit revised security plans at the appropriate times and that the Reactor Supervisor misinformed the Reactor Safety Committee in this matter.
2.
Corrective steps taken:
The University is seeking a new Reactor Supervisor.
j v
G' '
p n
't
- groma
- 18%r G
i 3.
Corrective steps taken to avoid further violations:
We propose l'
to ask the Reactor Safety Subcommittee to organize a timetable with all important deadlines for submitting reports, performing tests, reviewing plans etc.
The review of this list by the j
Subcommittee will be an agenda item of every Subcommittee j
meeting.
The person in charge of performing the review or test j
will certify in writing to the Subcommittee that the action item has been completed.
[
4.
The date when full compliance will be achieved:
The Security Plan Revisions I and 2, which had not been furnished to the Commission at an earlier date, are enclosed.
We also enclose l
Security Plan Revision 3, hiarch,1993.
This leads us to believe that we are in full compliance at this writing.
l l
Violation B 1.
Reasons for the violation:
It appears that the Reactor Supervisor failed to arrange a timely review of the Security Plan.
2.
Corrective steps taken:
The University is seeking a new Reactor Supervisor i
4 3.
Corrective steps taken to avoid further violations:
We propose to ask the Reactor Safety Subcommittee to organize a timetable with all important deadlines for submitting reports, performing i
tests, reviewing plans etc.
The review of this list by the Subcommittee will be an agenda item of every Subcommittee meeting.
The person in charge of performing the review or test will certify in writing to the Subcommittee that the action item has been completed.
4.
The date when full compliance will be achieved:
Security Plan Revision 3, hiarch,1993, which is attached, has been reviewed l
by hir. Reed Robert Burn, hianager, Nuclear Reactor Laboratory, 1
f i
.i e
The University of Michigan, while auditing the UML reactor, i
March 23-24,1993.
A copy of his audit summary is attached.
l We therefore believe that we are in full compliance at this I
writing.
i Please let me know if there are any questions.
I may be reached at (508)934-3280 or via fax at (508)459-6561.
j r
Yours truly,
[
r LAA lb
( L-',I i
' Gunter Kegel,
[
Director, Radiation Laboratory Attachments:
Security Plan, Revisions 1, 2 and 3 Audit Report (Audit Summary) by Reed Robert Burn, 3/31/9a i
Copy to:
l U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Regional Administrator, Region I 475 Allendale Road j
King of Prussia, Pa 19406-1415 l
l l
University of Lowell Nuclear Reactor Audit March 23-24. 1993 s
t AUDIT REPORT Facility:
University of Lowell Nuclear Reactor License No:
R-125 Date:
March 23-24, 1993 Auditor:
Reed Robert Burn. Manager Nuclear Reactor Laboratory The University of Michigan MA/
S/3/l93 Signature Date Audit Summarv l
The audit involved: 1) a review of surveillance requirements and
[
procedures to determine if Technical Specification requirements were met: and 2) a review of the security plan.
t In my view. the University of Lowell Nuclear Reactor is operated in a safe manner.
The recommendations in the audit are administrative, procedural, or suggest more effective ways of performing surveillance.
They do not reflect any unsafe practices.
The management and staff of the facility and the University were i
extremely helpful to and cooperative in the performance of the audit.
i Page 1
}
t University of Lowell Nuclear Reactor Audit March 23-24. 1993 o
t i
AUDIT REPORT I
Facility:
University of Lowell Nuclear Reactor License No:
R-125 Date:
March 23-24. 1993 Auditor:
Reed Robert Burn, Manager Nuclear Reactor Laboratory The University of Michigan hLL/
s/ wha Signature Date Audit Summary The audit involved: 1) a review of surveillance requirements and procedures to determine if Technical Specification requirements were met: and 2) a review of the security plan.
In my view, the University of Lowell Nuclear Reactor is operated in a safe manner.
The recommendations in the audit are administrative, procedural, or suggest more effective ways of performing surveillance.
They do not reflect any unsafe practices.
i The management and staff of the facility and the University were extremely helpful to and cooperative in the performance of the audit.
i i
i l
1 1
Page 1
University of Lowell Nuclear Reactor Audit' March 23-24. 1993 e
f AUDIT REPORT i
Facility:
University of Lowell Nuclear Reactor License No:
R-125 Date:
March 23-24 1993 i
Auditor:
Reed Robert Burn. Manager Nuclear Reactor Laboratory The University of Michigan 12x L L /
abiha Signature Date Audit Summarv i
The audit involved: 1) a review of surveillance requirements and procedures to determine if Technical Specification requirements were met: and 2) a review of the security plan.
In my view. the University of Lowell Nuclear Reactor is operated in a safe manner.
The recommendations in the audit are administrative, procedural. or suggest more effective ways of performing surveillance.
They do not reflect any unsafe i
practices.
The management and staff of the facility and the University were extremely helpful to and cooperative in the performance of the audit.
1 l
r l
f i
i Page 1
University of Lowell Nuclear Reactor Audit-March 23-24, 1993 AUDIT REPORT Facility:
University of Lowell Nuclear Reactor License No:
R-125 i
Date:
March 23-24. 1993 Auditor:
Reed Robert Burn, Manager Nuclear Reactor Laboratory The University of Michigan fl u L L A n sAiha Signature Date Audit Summarv The audit involved: 1) a review of surveillance requirements and procedures to determine if Technical Specification requirements were met: and 2) a review of the security plan.
In my view. the University of Lowell Nuclear Reactor is operated in a safe manner.
The recommendations in the audit are administrative, procedural, or suggest more effective ways of performing surveillance.
They do not reflect any unsafe practices.
The management and staff of the facility and the University were extremely helpful to and cooperative in the performance of the audit.
l Page 1 i
-