ML19344F142

From kanterella
Revision as of 10:54, 24 December 2024 by StriderTol (talk | contribs) (StriderTol Bot insert)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Ack Receipt of Informing NRC of Steps Taken to Correct Violations Noted in IE Insp Rept 50-326/80-01.NRC Concluded That Licensee Actions Are Not Sufficient to Avoid Further Violations
ML19344F142
Person / Time
Site: University of California - Irvine
Issue date: 08/12/1980
From: Crews J
NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V)
To: Mcgaugh J
CALIFORNIA, UNIV. OF, IRVINE, CA
Shared Package
ML19344F137 List:
References
NUDOCS 8009120470
Download: ML19344F142 (1)


See also: IR 05000326/1980001

Text

-

_

_

_

-,

.

f

p 9 l'" %y .

t

%

UNITED STATES

-

[#-

. ,.c y' j '

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

'*

'**

r,

'

s

REGION V

fh '. [

1990 N. CALIFORNI A COULEVARD

s

D

~ /

.

,o

SUITE 202, WALNUT CREEK PLAZA -

w e,

  • e,,*

WALNUT CREE K, CALirORNIA 9450G

"

'

'

Docket No. 50-326

University of California, Irvine

Irvine, California 92717

Attention: Professor J. L. McGaugh

Executive Vice Chancellor

Gentlemen:

Subject:

NRC Inspection Report 50-326/80-01

This is in reply to your letter dated July 24, 1980, which responded to our

letter and Notice of Violation of July 3,1980.

>

After careful consideration of your response and after discussions with

Mr. Harold Bernard, NRC Project Manager for the U.C. Irvine TRIGA Reactor,

we have concluded that the action you took, as described in Item B.(1)(b)

of your letter dated July 24, 1980, to correct an item of noncompliance

described in our Notice of Violation is not sufficient to avoid further

violations of a similar natura.

The action you took was to amend your operating procedures to delete any

reference to the frequency at which the Committee is required to review

reactor operations.

It is our position that your procedures should specify

a frequency for Committee review, and that the frequency for such reviews

must be at least once every twelve months.

In consideration of the above, with regard to the Notice of Violation which

was sent to you on July 3,1980, p%sp provide to this office within

ten days of the date of receipt of this letter an additional written state-

ment or explanation in reply f aciuding:

(1) corrective steps 'vhich have

been taken by you and the results achieved; (2) corrective ste , which will

be taken to avoid further violations; and (3) the date when ftAl compliance

will be achieved.

.Should you' have any questions concerning this letter, we will be glad to

discuss them with you.

Since ely,

/ /

J.

br'

,

eactor perations and Nuclear

t/ Support Branen

~

,8009120f

/

x