IR 05000252/1986001

Ack Receipt of Informing NRC of Steps Taken to Correct Violations Noted in Insp Rept 50-252/86-01

ML20212P550
Person / Time
Site:	University of New Mexico
Issue date:	08/27/1986
From:	Gagliardo J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV)
To:	Williams F NEW MEXICO, UNIV. OF, ALBUQUERQUE, NM
References
NUDOCS 8609030180
Download: ML20212P550 (2)

Text

.

. AUG 2 71986

,

l In Re. ply Refer to:

Docket: 50-252/86-01-

University of New Mexico l ATTN: Dr. Frank Williams, Reactor Administrator Chemical & Nuclear Engineering Department Albuquerque, NM 87131 Gentlemen:

Thank you for your letter of August 15, 1986, in response to our letter and Notice of Violation dated July 18, 1986. We have reviewed your reply and find it responsive to the concerns raised in our Notice of Violation. We will review the implementation of your corrective actions during a future inspection to determine that full compliance has been achieved and will be maintaine

Sincerely,

Ddginal Signed by;" >

J.E. Gagliardo, Chief Reactor Projects Branch cc: '

R. D. Busch, Chief Reactor Supervisor University of New Mexico Albuquerque, NM 87139 W. L. Tabor, Director Occupational Safety University of New Mexico Albuquerque, New Mexico 87139 State of New Mexico Environmental Improvement Agency bec: (see next page)

RIV:RF C:FRPS C:R&S C:RPB $!

REBaer:cd BMurray WLF JEGagli do

/86 /86 % /86 p4tj,/8; 8609030100 860827 k PDR ADOCK 05000252 /f,p O PDR Vi g

/Y ;

o

, , _ _

,

L . University of New Mexico -2-bec w/ copy of licensee's response w/ safeguards:

Physical Security File -

G. McCorkle, NMSS

'

J. Gibson, SSPD/NRR ,

'

IE File

'R. Martin Inspector Chief, EPSPS J. J. Dosa, NRR, Project Manager -

D. A. Powers bgc w/ copy of licensee's response w/o' safeguards:

@ B IE-04 RPB D. Weiss,'LFMB (AR-2015)

RIV File MIS RSTS Operator R&SPB'

Section Chief (RPSB)

RSB B. Murray R. L. Bangart E. H. Johnson W. L. Fisher

'

'r}'1

. i

l

~.- . . . - - _ . . . _ - . . . . _ _ _

. . . _ . . . _ . . _ _ _ _ _ - _ . - _ - , _

.

e

.

.

The MM University of New Mexico DEPARTMENT OF CHEMICAL AND NUCLEAR ENGINEERING Albuquerque, NM 87131 m Telephone 505: 277-5431

,q--- { fj '

3 r JN gej;;;_ - --

)y d .q:.

'

August 15, 1986 j gj@ \ 81986 J ', :,

in,{ Dj J.E. Gagliardo U W- _i Chief, Reactor Projacta Branch -

US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region IV 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 1000 Arlington, TX 76001 Ref: Docket - 50-252/86-01 Gentlemen:

Enclosed is a reply to the Notices of Violation from the inspection conducted at our facility during the period May 19-23, 1986. The reply provides the following information for each violation: Reason for the violation, Corrective steps taken to date and results, Corrective steps to be taken in the future, and, Date when full compliance is expecte We believe we have responded to each of the violations and indicated corrective actions which will bring our facility into full compliance with the applicable NRC requirement

Sincerely, I

l Frank L. Williams Reactor Administrator FW/kml cc: (w/o Safeguards Attachment)

NM Environmental Improvement Division

- R.D. Busch, Chief Reactor Supervisor, UhH W.L. Tabor, Director, Occupational Safety, UNM l =

-.

O

\

J-G.

l ,a q .. @ i t :

... -

1*

-

.

Failure to Implement Operator Requalification Frogram Operational recertification in March and October Operational recertification programs are held during the spring and -

fall semesters but not specifically during the senths of Perch and October. It was felt the the intent of the Feb. 21, 1977 letter was to propose a semester-based schedule with a list of activities which occurred within each semester, not necessarily identifying specific months. Based on this, the recertification programs are scheduled during each semester based on the availability of the reacter and operating staff. Since 1981, the written examination has been administered every.other year in the spring semester. This:was based on guidance from the NRC indicating that biannual examinations were acceptable for our facility. Fe5ever, we failed to notify the NRC of this change in our operator recertification progra . Written examinations have been adn:inistered during the summer to the operations staff to get us back on an annual examination schedul . In the application for license renewal on the AGN-201M submitted June 6, 1986, a revised operator requalification program was include This clarified the schedule to read, "A one day requalification training session will be scheduled semi-annually, during the Fall and Spring". The annual written examination is now scheduled to be administered during the Sprin . Full compliance is expected sometime in the fall when notice of the disposition of our license renewal application is received. If approved, then.our retraining program should comply with the revised requirements submitted in the applicatio Cperator requalification program documentation Over the last four years, we have had four different Chief Reactor Supervisors and three different Reactor Administrators. Due to internal communications problems, details on the documentation requirements for the operator requalification program were lost. The retraining sessions have been held during the Fall and Spring, but the I

content of some of those sessions was not described in the documentation of those sessions. In addition, a copy of the written examination for one of the senior operators was aisplaced in the transfer of responsibility and documents between Chief Reactor

-

Supervisor . All of the records for the requalification program are now kept in ene place so there will not be future need to trensfer s ecords shen a transfer of respon itility occurs.

l

, Response to FFC 2

. ._ _ -. -

.- . --

c

. A standard documentation form for the retraining sessions is being developed which indicates the content of the sessions and the rod manipulations performed by each participant in the sessions. This form will be used for all future retraining sessions starting with the one in the Fall of 1986. To avoid future problems with micplaced and incoriplete documentation, the Reactor Safeguards Advisory Committee .

(RSAC) has been tasked with an annual review of the records for the Operator Requalification Progra The expected date of full compliance is December 31, 1986 after the RSAC has met and reviewed the records and standard documentation form .

Failure to Perform Adequate Surveys Failure to properly calibrate neutron survey meters The neutron survey meter, FFC-4, was checked egoinst FuFe source meesuretente ernec111 Fe assue:ed that this was sufficient, but eccording to the inspectors this did not constitute a calibration but only a operating chec . We have developed a calibration procedure and schedule which includes the method for converting cpm to mrem /hr. We have also sent the neutron meters to an outside vendor for calibratio . We have changed our survey meter use procedure so that meters will not be in service for longer than one year before being sent to an outside verdor for calibratio Full compliance should be achieved by October 1, 1986 when the meters have returned and a survey is performe It was also noted in the inspection that the model 3 neutron meter, PAC-4S

. alpha meter.and Model CPMU gamma meter were not calibrated. These

!

instruments are used in the nuclear engineering lab for course work and l demonstration purposes. They are not used in the reactor laboratory and

! are not readily accessible in the cese of o t eactor er.ergenc ,

Failure to properly calibrate remote area monitors 1 ' Remote area monitors (RAMS) were calibrated with the internal check

,

sources. We assumed that this was sufficient, but according to the l inspectors, there needed to be a calibration check on the check l sources or a separate calibration on each RA . Ve are currently developing a calibration procedure for the RAEs.

l Eesponse to FFC 3 l

l l

, .-. ---

,

,

. . Ve 5.111 celibrete the t'onitors according to ranufacturer's instructions and then use the internal source and an external source to provide calibration checks at different levels on different range . Corpliance will depend on availability of an external calibration source, full compliance is expected by March 1, 198 Failure to properly calittete stlf reeding dosimeters Uc t er e t r asar t of the utility of celil> ction of an instrument which can not be adjuste . We are currently developing a procedure for checking and calibrating the self reading dositet er . resineters will be in service for no more than one year before being checked for calibration. The calibration check will involve at least two points on the rang . Full compliance is expected by March 1, 198 Failure to comply with Physical Security Plar Included as an attachment to this report containing Safeguards Informatio Response to NRC 4 m