ML20063M919

Responds to NRC Re Violation Noted in IE Insp Rept 50-160/82-01.Corrective Actions:Importance & Specified Requirement to Perform Heat Balance Every Wk Whenever Reactor Is Operated at Above 1 MW Discussed W/Staff

ML20063M919
Person / Time
Site:	Neely Research Reactor
Issue date:	08/20/1982
From:	Carlson W Neely Research Reactor, ATLANTA, GA
To:	NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
Shared Package
ML20063M912	List: ML20063M919
References
NUDOCS 8209160380
Download: ML20063M919 (2)

Text

f . , l 1

Georgia Institute of Technology R*" SCHOOL OF NUCLEAR ENGINEERING AND HEALTH PHYSICS ATLANTA, GEO9GIA 30332 extw exnce nescmcs j2 [nc 26 ^B 3L t.o., ee..aeco CE N TE R August 20, 1982 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region II 101 Marietta Street, N.W.

Atlanta, Georgia 30303

Reference:

Report No. 50-160/82-01 Gentlemen:

This letter is our response to the referenced report / inspection of the Georgia Tech Research Reactor by Mr. A.

K. Hardin of your office to Dr. L. Weaver. Dr. Weaver has recently accepted the position of Dean of Engineering of Auburn University at Auburn Alabama. As Acting Director of the School of Nuc7 ear Engineering and Health Physics, I am assuming his responsibility with regard to the GTRR until such time as a new Director is appointed.

Item No heat balance vs. channel checks for certain periods when the reactor was operated at levels of 1 MW.

We have carefully re-examined our records for the periods in question and have concluded that on four weekly periods (two in April, one in May, and one in June) the reactor was indeed operated at 1 MW without a heat balance vs. channel check being recorded. We did note that on April 14 , 1982 and May 19, 1982 the reactor was operated at 1 MW for several periods of nine minutes or less. This time period is not sufficient for meaningful heat balance data to be obtained. Additionally, as your inspector noted, our Heat Balance Procedure 2015 erroneously states that the channel check is to be made every thirty days rather than weekly.

l Our efforts to prevent recurrence of this problem have been directed to discussion with each licensed staff member concerning the importance and specified requirement to perform e

e b

l c1391bO380820831]

PvRADOCK05000gg{

G A Unit of the Unwersity System o' George An Equal Educahon and Ernployment opportundy instituten

the . heat balance every week whenever the. reactor is operated at or above 1 MW. These discussions have been completed. We believe that our particular operations schedule would make it impractical to incorporate a specific instruction that would require, for example, a heat balance on a specific day or at a specific time. We do not, therefore, believe such an instruction should be issued. The discrepancy in our Procedure 2015 will be eliminated. This action should be completed by September 30, 1982.

I believe this answers the questions in the referenced report. If you should need additional clarification or information, please do not hesitate to call.

Sincerely yours,

[NMh

,W. O. Carlson, Acting irector School of Nuclear Engineering i and Health Physics WOC /jh .

cc: File /NRC Inspection, Members, Nuclear Safeguards Committee