ML20087C730
| ML20087C730 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Idaho State University |
| Issue date: | 01/09/1992 |
| From: | NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20087C739 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-284-91-01, 50-284-91-1, NUDOCS 9201150016 | |
| Download: ML20087C730 (2) | |
Text
_ ____ _ _..
APPENDIX A NOTICE OF VIOLATION Idaho State University (ISU)
Docket No. 50-284 Lillibridge Engineering Laboratory License No. R-110 During'an NRC inspection conducted December 9-12, 1991, violations of NRC requirements were identified.
These violations involved:
(1) 1mplementation of the reactor operator requalifica; ion program (2) implementation of the Radiological Emergency Plan, and (3) failure to perform audits.
In accordance with the " General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions," 10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C (1991), the violations are listed below:
A.
10 CFR Part 55.59(c) requires that a facility licensee have a reactor operator requalification program reviewed and approved by the Commission.
Technical Specification 6.3 of the ISU Facility Operating Li;ense, Amendment 4, requires that all licensad reactor operators shall participate in requalification training as set forth in 10 ;FR Part 55.
Section 4.a of the licensee's NRC approved reactor operator requalification program recuires that an annual written examination covering the entire area of reactor operations for the AGN-201 reactor will be administered to all operators and senior operators by the Reactor Safety. Committee, Contrary to the above, the inspectors deiermired on December 12, 1991,
-that the license;'s Reactor Safety Committee had not administe ed an annual written examination to two senior reactcr operators in 1990.
This is a Severity Level IV violation (Supplement 1) (284/9101-01).
B.
'10 CFR Part 50.54(q) requires that a licensee authorized to possess and/or operate a research reactor shalf follow and maintain in effect emergency plans.
Section_6 of the NRC approved Emergency Plan (Revision 4) for the ISU nuclear facility, dated May 2, 1989 requires that university personnel who would be involved in a nuclear incident will be tested by annual drills.
Contrary to the above, the NRC inspector determined on December 12, 1991 that the licensee did not conduct-a drill of the ISU Emergency Plan during 1990.
This is a repeat violation.
This is a Severity Level IV violation (Supplement 1) (284/9101-02).
C.
License Condition 2.C.(2) of Amendment No. 4 to the ISU Amended Facility Operating License requires that the licensee shall operate the facil' y in accordance with the Technical Specifications.
Enclosure contains PROPRIETARY INFORMATION Decontrolled when separated from attachment.
9201150016 920109 PDR-ADOCK 05000284 G
... - - 1 Technical Specification 6.4.3.a requires 'that the licensee audit the
-conformance of facility operation to the Technical Specifications and applicable license conditions, at least once per 12 months.
Contrary;to the above, the inspectors determined on December 12, 1991, that the conformance of facility operation to the Technical Specifications
= and applicable license conditions was not audited once 'per 12 nionths, in that no. audit had been performed since the last audit in May 1990.
This is a Severity Level IV violation-(Supplement-1) (284/9101-03).
Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, Idaho State University is hereby required to submit a written statement or explanation to the U.S. Nuclear
- Regulatory Commission, ATTN: Document Control Oesk, Washington, D.C.-20555 with
~ a copy to the Regional Administrator, Region IV, within 30 days of the date of the letter transmitting this' Notice of Violation (Notice).
This reply ~should be clearly marked as;a " Reply to a Notice of Violation" and should include for
. each violation:- (1)- the reason for the violation, 0, if contested, the' basis for disputing the violation, (2) the corrective steps that have been taken and
- theEresults achieved,l(3) the corrective steps that will be.taken to avoid further violations,'and (4) the date when full' compliance will be achieved.
If
~
an adequate} reply is not received within the time ~specified by this Notice, an-order may be issued to show cause why the license should not be modified,
~
suspended, or revoked, or why such other action as may be proper should-not-be taken. Where good cause is shown, consideration will be given to. extending tne response time.
Under the authority of Section 182 of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 2232,
- this response shall be submitted under' cath or affirmation.
DatedLat' Arlington, Texas ithi s 9th' : day of January 1992 l
I Enclosure contains PROPRIETARY INFORMATION Decontrolled when separated from attachment.
~
n.
,, ~
\\