ML13232A009

Purdue University - Reply to Notice of Violation

ML13232A009
Person / Time
Site:	Purdue University
Issue date:	08/06/2013
From:	Jamieson L Purdue University Research Reactor
To:	Document Control Desk, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
Download: ML13232A009 (2)

Text

PURDUE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING Leah H. Jamieson The John A. Edwardson Dean of Engineering Ransburg Distinguished Professor of Electrical

& Computer Engineering August 6, 2013 ATTN: Document Control Desk U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555-0001 RE: License R-87, Docket 50-182 Reply to Notice of Violation Document Control Desk, This letter and attachment are in response to the NRC inspection of the Purdue University Reactor (R-87)conducted from June 10-13, 2013. The inspection resulted in a Severity Level IV violation (Section 6.1).The response to the violation is contained on the attached document.Please let me know if you have any questions.

Sincerely, Leah H Jamieso The John A. Edwardson Dean of Engineering Ransburg Distinguished Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering Attachment A402 0-Office of the Dean Neil Armstrong Hall of Engineering m 701 W. Stadium Avenue m West Lafayette, IN 47907-2045 (765) 494-5346 0 Fax: (765) 494-9321 o lhj@purdue.edu 0 httpsJ/engineering.purdue.edu RE: License R-87, Docket 50-182 Reply to Notice of Violation This letter in in response to the NRC inspection of the Purdue University Reactor (R-87)conducted from June 10-13, 2013. The inspection resulted in a Severity Level IV violation (Section 6.1). Below is the response to that violation:

Violation Technical Specification 4.4.d requires that representative fuel assemblies shall be inspected annually, with no interval to exceed 15 months.Contrary to Technical Specifications 4.4.d, the licensee failed to inspect representative fuel assemblies annually, with no interval exceeding 15 months. Specifically, the licensee failed to inspect representative fuel assemblies during calendar year 2012 and had not conducted a fuel inspection through June 13, 2013, a period in excess of the maximum of 15 months allowed.Response The failure to perform this required surveillance was an oversight on our part. This surveillance was completed in accordance with the technical specifications on July 18, 2013 and the results of the fuel inspection were satisfactory.

The following corrective actions will be implemented immediately to prevent a recurrence:

1. Surveillances required by the technical specifications will be performed by the Radiation Safety Officer or Health Physicist during the interim period (vacancy of the facility director).

2. The technical specifications will be reviewed by the new facility director, reactor supervisor, and reactor operator(s) upon hire.3. The annual audit of the technical specifications will continue to occur. Any surveillance deficiencies identified will be reported to the Committee on Reactor Operations (CORO)and the Dean of the College of Engineering.

We believe that the above corrective actions are adequate to address the violation identified and maintain compliance with other technical specifications.

Please direct any questions to my attention.