ML20236X740

Discusses Insp Rept 50-243/98-201 on 980218-20,0506 & 11-13 & Forwards Nov.Insp Was follow-up on 980217 Event Involving Operation of Triga Mark-II Reactor W/O TS Required Scrams Being Operable

ML20236X740
Person / Time
Site:	Oregon State University
Issue date:	07/31/1998
From:	Roe J NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned)
To:	Dodd B Oregon State University, CORVALLIS, OR
Shared Package
ML20236X743	List: ML20236X740 ML20236X748
References
50-243-98-201, EA-98-320, NUDOCS 9808100229
Download: ML20236X740 (5)

See also: IR 05000243/1998201

Text

.

,+nt:

p* 4 UNITED STATES

!

"

j

't

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555 4001

%'***,*/ July 31, 1998

EA 90-320

Dr. Brian Dodd, Director

Oregon State University

Radiation Center, A100

Corvallis, OR 97331-5903

SUBJECT: NOTICE OF VIOLATION (NRC INSPECTION REPORT NO. 50-243/98 201)

Dear Dr. Dodd:

This refers to the inspection conducted by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)

on February 18-20 and May 6 and 11-13,1998, of your Radiation Center TRIGA Mark-Il

reactor facility. The purpose of the inspection was to follow-up on the event of

February 17,1998, involving operation of the TRIGA Mark-Il reactor without technical

specification required scrams being operable. The results of the inspection were discussed

with you and your staff and were detailed in the inspection report issued on Jt.1e 19,1998.

The inspection report provided you the opportunity to either respond to the apparent

violations addressed in the inspection report or request a predecisional enforcement

conference. On June 23,1998, you informed the NRC that Oregon State University did not

wish to request a predecisional enforcement conference. By a letter dated June 24,1998,

you submitted a response to the apparent violations identified in the inspection report.

Based on the information developed during the inspection and the information that was

provided in your letter of June 24,1998, the NRC has determitied that two violations of

requirements occurred. The violations are cited in the enclosed Notice of Violation (Notice)

and the circumstances surrounding them are described in detail in the subject inspection

report. The first violation resulted from a change to the wiring / circuitry of your reactor

console at some point in the past. This change, when combined with the reactor console

switch becoming stuck in the " reset" position, resulted in the reactor being operated for a

period of approximately 14 minutes without any of the technical specification required

automatic or manual scrams being available or functional. The second violation involved the

failure to prepare and retain indefinhely updated, corrected, and as-built drawings of the

facility. The change that was made to the reactor console wiring was not reflected in the

as-built wiring schematics of the reactor console.

The actual safety consequences of these violations were low because the reactor was only

operated for a short period of time without required scram protection, the automatic

protection system was not called upon to scram the reactor during the period of operation.

l the TRIGA reactor is designed with a large, prompt negative iuc! *amoerature coefficient,

I

and the reactor operator had available other means to manually shut dow.~. 50 reactor.

Although the violations did not result in any safety consequence and were not

programmatic in nature, they are of significant regulatory concern because automatic selcty

systems are an important aspect of the mieltiple lines of defense used to prevent or mitigate

a serious safety event. In addition, given a different set of circumstances where the system

i

l 9808100229 980731

PDR ADOCK 05000243

bff '

G PDR ,

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -

- . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - - _

l

f

l -

Dr. Brian Dodd 2

was called upon to perform its safety function, a situation could have developed with a

safety consequence. Therefore, these violations have been categorized in accordance with

the "(, eneral Statement of Policy and Procedures for NRC Enforcement Actions"

l

(Enforcement Policy), NUREG-1600, Revision I, as a Severity Level lli Problem.

In accordance with the Enforcement Policy, a base civil penalty in the amount of $2,750 is

considered for a Severity Level 111 problem. Because your facility has not been the subject

of escalated enforcement actions during the past two inspections, the NRC considered

' whether credit was warranted for Corrective Action in ccordance with the civi! penalty

assessment process described in Section VI.B.2 of the Enforcement Policy. NRC

determined that credit was warranted for Corrective Action because your staff, upon

identification of the first violation, took prompt steps t) (1) modify the reactor console

circuitry to make it consistent with that shown and evaluated in the original design

drawings for th'e TRIGA reactor, (2) conduct a point-to-point and afectronic check of the i

scram loop circuitry to provide assurance that the ashuilt condition matches the circuitry )

shown in the facility documentation, and (3) modify the reactor start-up procedure to add a l

scram test that would confirm that the control rod in1gnetic powar is de-energized when

the console key switch is in the " reset *' position. B" ed on the above, the NRC determined

that credit was warranted for the factor of Corrective Action.

Therefore, to encourage prompt identification and comprehensive correction of violations, I

have been authorized, after consultation with the Director of Enforcement, not to propose a

civil penalty in this casa. However, significant violations in the future could result in a civil

penalty.

Your letter of June 24,1998, included for each apparent violation (1) the reason for the

apparent violation, (2) the corrective steps that have been taken and the results achieved,

(3) the corrective steps that will be taken to avoid further violations, and (4) the date when

full compliance will be achieved. The NRC considers that your docketed correspondence of

June 24,1998, satisfies the requirements of 10 CFR 2.201 for required responses to

Notices of Violation. Therefore, no additional response is required for the enclosed Notice

of Violation. These correctiva actions appear adequate and will be examined during a future

inspection.

In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," a copy of this letter and

its enclosure will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room (PDR).

If you have any questions concerning this issue, please contact us.

i

Sincerely,

b

i J ek W. Roe, Acting Director i

ivision of Reactor Program Management  !

'

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Docket No. 50-243 l

License No. R-106  ;

Enclosure: Notice of Violation l

cc w/ enclosure: See next page j

i

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ._. _. l

. _ _ _ _ _ _ _- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - _ - _ _ _ _

'

Dr. Brian Dodd 2

, was called upon to perform its safety function, a situation could have developed with a

safety consequence. Therefore, these violations have been categorized in accordance with

the " General Statement of Policy and Procedures for NRC Enforcement Actions"

l (Enforcement Policy), NUREG-1600, Revision I, as a Severity Level lli Problem.

( In accordance with the Enforcement Policy, a base civil penalty in the amount of $2,750 is  ;

l considered for a Severity Level 111 problem. Because your facility has not been the subject

l of escalated enforcement actions during the past two inspections, the NRC considered

whether credit was warranted for Corrective Action in accordance with the civil penalty

assessment process described in Section VI.B.2 of the Enforcement Policy. NRC j

determined that credit was warranted for Corrective Action because your staff, upon 1

identification of the first violation, took prompt steps to (1) modify the reactor console

circuitry to make it consistent with that shown and evaluated in the original dec!gn

drawings for the TRIGA reactor, (2) conduct a point-to-point and electronic check of the

scram loop circuitry to provide assurance that the as-built condition matches the circuitry

shown in the facility documentation, and (3) modify the reactor start-up procedure to add a l

scram test that would confirm that the control rod magnetic power is de-energized when

the console key switch is in the " reset" position. Based on the above, the NRC determined

that credit was warranted for the factor of Corrective Action.

Therefore, to encourage prompt identification and comprehensive correction of violations, I

have been authorized, after consultation with the Director of Ei.forcement, not to propose a

civil penalty in this case. However, significant violations in the future could result in a civil

penalty.

Your letter of June 24,1998, included for each apparent violation (1) the reason for the 1

apparent violation, (2) the corrective steps that have been taken and the results achieved, .

(3) the corrective steps that will be taken to avoid further violations, and (4) the date when

full compliance will be achieved. The NRC considers that your docketed correspondence of

June 24,1998, satisfies the requirements of 10 CFR 2.201 for required responses to

Notices of Violation. Therefore, no additionel response is required for the enclosed Notice

of Violation. These corrective actions appear adequate and will be examined during a future

inspection.

In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," a copy of this letter and

its enclosure will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room (PDR).

If you have any questions concerning this issue, please contact us.

Sincerely,

ORIGINAL SIGNED BY:

Jack W. Roe, Acting Director

Division of Reactor Program Management

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Docket No. 50-243

License No. R-106

Enclosure: Notice of Violation

cc w/ enclosure: See next page

DISTRIBUTION:

HARD COPY E-MAIL COPY

Docket File 50-243 SWeiss TBurdick Pisaac

<

PUBLIC EHylton PDoyle MMendonca

!

PDND r/f DISP (05-E7) TDragoun TMichaels

Public Affairs CBassett WEresian SHolmes

EDO AAdams O d EU /3 /L E

JRoe (012-E5) JLieberman LO7-H5) W 8U

-

PD P LA O D A)D

. ett ton SWeiss JLieberman [oo

7/ 7 98 98 7F//98 7/9/98 7/P/98 77 #9 8

OFF CIAL RECORD COPY DOCUMENT NAME: G:\SECY\BASSETTW-50243

_ _ - _ . - - _ - _ _ - _ _ - - -- . . .

Dr. Brian Dodd 2

a

was called upon to perform its safety function, a situaticn could have developed with a

safety consequence. Therefore, these violations have been categorized in accordance with

the " General Statement of Policy and Procedures for NRC Enforcement Actions"

(Enforcement Policy), NUREG-1600, Revicion I, as a Severity Level til Problem.

In accordance with the Enforcement Policy, a base civil perialty in the amount of $2,750 is

considered for a Severity Level 111 problem. Because your facility has not been the subject

of escalated enforcement actions during the past two inspections, the NRC considered

whether credit was warranted for Corrective Action in accordance with the civil penalty

assessment process described in Section VI.B.2 of the Enforcement Policy. NRC

determined that credit was warranted for Corrective Action because your staff, upon

identification of the first violation, took prompt steps to (1) modify the reactor console

circuitry to make it consistent with that shown and evaluated irs the original design

drawings for the TRIGA reactor, (2) conduct a point-to-point and electronic check of the

scram loop circuitry to provide assurance that the as-built condition matches the circuitry

shown in the facility documentation, and (3) modify th reactor start-up procedure to add a

scram test that would confirm that the control rod magnetic power is de-energized when

the console key switch is in the " reset" position. Based on the above, the NRC determined

that credit was warranted for the factor of Corrective Action.

Therefore, tc encourage prompt identification and comprehensive correction of violations, I

have been authorized, after consultation with the Director of Enforcement, not to propose a

civil penalty in this case. However, significant violations in the future could result in a civil

penalty.

Your letter of June 24,1998, included for each apparent violation (1) the reason for the

apparent violation, (2) the corrective steps that have been taken and the results achieved,

(3) the corrective steps that will be taken to avoid further violations, and (4) the date when

full compliance will be achieved. The NRC considers that your docketed correspondence of

June 24,1998, satisfies the requirements of 10 CFR 2.201 for required responses to

Notices of Violation. Therefore, no additional response is required for the enclosed Notice

of Violation. These corrective actions appear adequate and will be examined during a future

inspection,

in accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," a copy of this letter and

its enclosure will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room (PDR).

If you have any questions concerning this issue, please contact us.

Sincerely,

ORIGINAL SIGNED BY:

Jack W. Roe, Acting Director

Division of Reactor Program Management

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Docket No. 50-243

License No. R-106

Enclosure: Nctice of Violation

cc w/ enclosure: See next page

DISTRIBUTION:

HARD COPY E-MAIL COPY

Docket File 50-243 SWeiss TBurdick Pisaac

PUBLIC EHylton PDoyle MMendonca

PDND r/f DISP (05-E7) TDragoun TMichaels

Putnic Affairs CBassett WEresian SHolmes  !

EDO AAdams ?u 8

JRoe (012-E5) JLieberman LO7-H5) 8 88-

, - -h} OE"j'

j -

P P hpW D A)D '

ett on Weiss JLieberman oe

7/p98 98 7A7/98 7/30/9 8 7/; /98

I/98

OFF CIAL RECORD COPY DOCUMENT NAME: G:\SECY\BASSETT\V-50243

_ _ _ _ _ .

_ _- _ --

.

.

Oregon State University Docket No. 50-243

cc:

Dr. Wilson Hayes, Vice Provost for Research

Oregon State University

Administrative Services Building, Room A-312

Corvallis, OR 97331-5903

Dr. Jack F. Higginbotham

Reactor Administrator

Oregon State University

Radiation Center, A-100

Corvallis, OR 97331 5904

Test, Research, and Training

Reactor Newsletter

University of Florida

202 Nuclear Sciences Center

Gainesville, FL 32611

M. W. Alsworth

Oregon Department of Energy

625 Marion Street, N.E.

Salem, Oregon 97310

I

_ _ _ _ _ _