ML20126H412

Responds to Telcon Re Violation Noted in Safety Insp on 850226-28.Corrective Actions:Comm Ed Contacted for Immediate Delivery of Continuous Air Monitors.Portable Air Particulate Monitor Used in Interim

ML20126H412
Person / Time
Site:	05000356, University of Illinois
Issue date:	05/06/1985
From:	Beck G ILLINOIS, UNIV. OF, URBANA, IL
To:	Ridgeway K NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
Shared Package
ML20126H379	List: IR 05000151/1985001 ML20126H412
References
NUDOCS 8506180335
Download: ML20126H412 (1)

Text

' University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Nuclear Engineering Program 214 Nudeor logineering Laborotory 103 south ooodwin Avenue S-6-85 Urbano, Illinois 61801 f 217) 333 2295 Reglon Ill, USNRC 799 Roosevelt Road Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137 Attn. Ken Ridgeway p/,&

Dear Mr. Ridgeway:

This is in reply to your telephonc call concerning an item in the recent report on the February 26-28, 198S safety inspection. It is the Notice of Deviation concerning the Continuous Air Particulate Monitor which has been out of service for several months. I apologize for not including It Iniearlier reply. This was overlooked because the request for corrective action was not included in Appendix B, but was rather on page 1 of the report, in thi case of the Notice of Violation, the requirement to submit a reply was included in Appendix A where the violation was noted.

The present corrective action has been a call to Commonwealth Edison to attempt to get some movement on two Continuous Air Monitors that were essentially given to us in August, 1983 The original delay in getting these units was involved in decontamination. Because of possible insurance liability, this is required for anything leaving the plant. This is still the reason for the delay.

In the interim, we will use a portable air particulate monitor to give some back up for the continuous system. We will make periodic checks with this system as Is done in many research fari1itles. It wilI also be used to make a check on the building air for those occasions where there is any suspicion that the air activity is above normal values. If the talks with Commonwealth Edison fall apart, we will check on the purchase of a new unit.

I am highly concerned about the inspection branch of the USNRC apparent movement toward finding deviations in a Safety Analysis Report. This could lead to a large number of deviation reports in the future. When Technical Specifications was added as an Appendix to the Utilization License, the main purpose was to avoid this type of situation. Previous to Technical Specifications, a facilities hands were tied when changes were made or when a new experiment was evaluated.

At that time an amendment was necessary and to get one approved could f requently take over one year. The only part of the Safety Analysis Report that should be involved is where a reference is made to it in the Technical Specifications.

This is not to imply that we feel that the use of a Continuous Air Particulate Monitor is of no value. We spent many hours in maltaining the system that is now out of service and we thought that we had made arrangements for a replacement before it was no longer useable. One of its major uses was for visiting groups who could learn more about dally variations in the radon concentration in the air.

Yougstruly, m7 .

f l u k ,i , b r k Gerald P. Beck, Reactor Supervisor University of IIIInols 8506180335 850610 Urbana, fil. 61801 PDft ADOCK 05000151 0 PDR

'MAY 91985

. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Nuclear Engineering Program 214 Nweleer Engineering labororory 103 South Goodain Avenue

• Urbono. Illinois 61801 4-18-63 (217) 333 2295 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region lli 799 Roosevelt Road Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137 Attn. C. E. Norelius

Dear Sir:

This is a reply to a violation that was noted during the routine safety inspection conducted by K. R. Ridgway and J. E. Foster on February 26-26, 1985 The violation concerned inadequate records in the Operator Requalification Program.

l (1) Corrective action taken and the results achieved:

Oral and written exams have been administered to each of the Individuals that were involved. Both Individuals performed in a satisfactory manner.

Present plans call for a second written exam in about 3 months.

(2) Correc tive ac tion to be taken to avoid f urthe r noncompilance.

Having received the notice of violation is no doubt the best incentive to avoid further noncompliance. A statement concerning the requalification exams will be added to the Status Board in the control room.

(3) The date wnen full compliance will be, achieved.

F ull compilance has ticen achieved with this report since the exams have already been administered. l

)

Yours truly, er .p p

/ sa. , i . n .w . -

Gerald P. Beck, Reactor Supervisor Nuclear Reactor Laboratory 214 NEL 103 5. Goodain l Urbana, Illinois 61801 fP' Al'R 2 41985-