ML20249C456

Responds to NRC Re Violations Noted in Insp Rept 50-243/98-201.Licensee Requests That NRC Refrain from Issuing Civil Penalty & NOV Due to Noted Reasons

ML20249C456
Person / Time
Site:	Oregon State University
Issue date:	06/24/1998
From:	Dodd B Oregon State University, CORVALLIS, OR
To:	NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM)
References
RTR-NUREG-1600 50-243-98-201, NUDOCS 9806300024
Download: ML20249C456 (3)

Text

__ __________ .. ____--__-

, RADIATloN CENTER ORECON STATE UNIVERStrY i 100 Radiation center corvallis. oregon 973315903 Telephone 54l 737-234i Fax 541737 0480 June 24,1998 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Document Control Desk Washington, D.C. 20555

Reference:

Oregon State University TRIGA Reactor (OSTR)

Docket No. 50-243, License No. R-106 Notification Letter to the USNRC Dated March 2,1998 NRC Inspection Report No. 50-243/98-201, Dated June 19,1998

Subject:

Response to Apparent Violations in Inspection Report 50-243/98-201 Gentlemen:

In accordance with the instructions in the cover letter of the subject inspection report, on June 23, 1998, I informed Mr. Alext.nder Adams that the OSU Radiation Center will select option (1) and will respond in writiag within 30 days. We do not wish to request a predecisional enforcement conference. This letter constitutes our 30 day written response.

With respect to (1) the reason for each 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, I believe that these were all addressed in our original written notification of the event, dated March 2,1998. The reasons for the apparent )/

violations are described on pages 2 and 3 of that letter. Each of the corrective actions described on page 4 of the letter were completed successfully, as also indicated in the conclusion of the inspection i/'h report. Finally, measures to prevent further violations are addressed on page 5 of the referenced letter. The OSTR has been in full compliance since prior to the reactor restart on February 24,1998 While most of the inspection report appears to be an accurate reflection of the facts, I believe there fd is an inadvertent error on page 4. It states that: "On February 20,1998, the licensee also submitted a letter to the NRC describing the event and the corrective actions to be taken." In fact, this was the 14 day letter discussed in other parts of the report which was sent on March 2,1998. A letter was sent to the NRC on February 20,1998, but it was reporting revisions and updates to the OSTR Physical Security Plan and not related to the event under discussion.

9806300024 980624 PDR ADOCK 05000243 G PDR

4 l U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

. Page 2 June 24,1998 l

l In conclusion, as the appropriate enforcement actions are being considered,I would like to make a plea that the NRC exercise the discretion allowed in your Enforcement Policy (NUREG 1600-Rev.1) and refrain from issuing a civil pennity and a Notice of Violation. It would appear that either Sections VII.B.1 or VII.B.6 may allow such discretion. The basic cause of the apparent violations was probably a wiring change made by an electronics technician during the original installation of the reactor console during a time when many connections were being made and prior to initial criticality in 1967. None of the current Radiation Center 's staffwaspresent at that time.

Since then the OSTR has a 30 year record of performing detailed safety analyses and reviews of almost any change, regardless of whether the review is required by regulations or not. It is hard to see how enforcement action can have any further impact since we are already doing everything that it is designed to do as described in Section I of NUREG 1600-Rev.1. The OSTR staff already has a high opinion of the importance of compliance with the NRC's requirements, as evidenced by our record, and this event was very promptly reported and the corrective actions imp!emented within a few days. Finally, while still a serious event, it had extremely small actual or potential safety significance as explained in our letter ofMarch 2,1998.

Should there be questions regarding the information in this response or should you require more information, please let me know.

c Yours si cerely, H/. /

Brian Dodd, PhD Director c: Al Adams, Senior Project Manager, Non-Power Reactors and Decommissioning Projects Directorate, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, M.S. 0-11-B-20, Washington, D.C.20555 Craig Bassett, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,61 Forsyth St. SW, Suite 23T85, Atlanta, GA 30303 Oregon Department of Energy,625 Marion Street, NE, Salem, Oregon 97310, Attn: Mary Lou Blazek W. "Toby" Hayes, Vice-Provost for Research Stephen E. Binney, Chairman, Reactor Operations Committee Jack F. Higginbotham, Reactor Administrator David S. Pratt, Senior Health Physicist Arthur D. Hall, Reactor Supervisor

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

, Pag,e 3 June 24,1998 State of Oregon )

) ss County ofBenton )

Brian Dodd, being first duly sworn on oath, deposes and says that he has affixed his signature to the letter above in his oflicial capacity as Director of the Oregon State University Radiation Center; that he has signed this letter supplying information as required by NRC Inspection Report No. 50-243/98-201; that in accordance with the provisions of 10 CFR 50.30(b), he is attaching this aflidavit; that the facts set forth in the letter are true to his best information and belief.

I Al/

--- ==84 Subscribed and sworn to before me, a Notary Public, in and for the County of Benton, State of Oregon, this A'v'c4 day of . A.D.,1998 R

Ad 9 hloi Shirley Campbe)l L My Comi'nission Expires Notary Publitsff Oregon I

l N -_- --