IR 05000013/1985001

Ack Receipt of Informing NRC of Steps Taken to Correct Violations Noted in Insp Repts 50-013/85-01 & 70-0824/85-05.Damage to Drum Occurred During Transport & Due to Condition Normally Incident to Transportation

ML20205F336
Person / Time
Site:	Lynchburg Research Center, 07000824
Issue date:	10/25/1985
From:	Grace J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
To:	Engelder T BABCOCK & WILCOX CO.
References
NUDOCS 8511050323
Download: ML20205F336 (4)

Text

F r

,? - ?

OCT 2 51985 Babcock and Wilcox Company

)cTTN: Dr. T. C. Engelder, Director Lynchburg Research Center Research and Development Division P. O. Box 11165 Lynchburg, VA 24506-1165 Gentlemen:

SUBJECT: REPORT NOS. 70-824/85-05 AND 50-013/85-01 Thank you for your response of August 28, 1985, to our Notice of Violation issued on July 29, 1985, concerning activities conducted at your Lynchburg Researen Center facilit We have examined your response and found that it meets the requirements of 10 CFR 2.201. We will examine the implementation of your corrective actions for

. Violations 1, 2.a, and 3 during future inspection In your response to Violation 1, you stated that you were unable to admit or deny-the violation and requested that the level of the violation be reduced to a Severity Level CFR 2, Appendix C, Supplement V.C.1 states that breach of package integrity is an example of a Severity Level III violation. Based on an evaluation of the inspection findings and the information you presented at the Enforcement Conference, we concluded the safety significance of the event is best characterized as a Severity Level IV violatio Further reduction of this violation to a Severity Level V is not warranted. You also stated that the drum in question was not punctured prior to its shipment and that the puncture was not caused by conditions normally incident to transportation. Based on an evaluation of the inspection findings and discussions with the burial site and State personnel who observed the drum prior to unloading, we have concluded that the damage occurred during transport and as a result of a condition normally incident to transportatio With . regard to Violation 2.b, after careful consideration of the bases for your denial we have concluded, for the reasons presented in the Enclosure to this letter, that the violation occurred as stated in the Notice of Violatio Therefore, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.201(a), please submit to this office within 30 days of the date of t is letter, a written statement describing steps which have been taken to correct Violation 2.b and the results achieved, corrective actions which will be taken to avoid further violations, and the date when full compliance will be achieve In accordance with Section 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," Part 2, Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, a copy of this letter and its enclosure will be placed in the NRC's Public Ducument Roo The response directed by this letter is not subject to the clearance procedure for the Office of Management and Budget issued under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, PL 96-51 I l PDR ADOCK 05000013 G PDR 1 e no7

F

.

.

.- .

. Babcock and Wilcox Company 2 We appreciate your cooperation in this matte

Sincerely, J. Nelson Grace Regional Administrator Enclosure:

Staff Assessment of Licensee Response P

$

.

.

.

RII RII RII RII RII

.

h cg/C gg(

REWeddington:es CM os DMCollins JBdthle EJMcAlpine 10//f/85 10p/85 10/f t/85 10/p\/85 10/2//85

.RII RII , RII RII K PF b GRdenk s JP r JA0 , ski 10/21/85 io hv tG 10/2 y 5 fl g 5J 10 y85 10/ys/85 C Y h

,a,qy

}

. -

ENCLOSURE STAFF ASSESSMENT OF LICENSEE RESPONSE Licensee Comment I deny this violation (2.b) for two reasons: The crack in the Ratchet Binder Bracket of the M01 shipping container constitutes a superficial mark which is permitted under the regulations, and LRC met all five tests specified in 10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C, for this issue not to be reported in the Notice of Violatio NRC Response 4 CFR 71.87(b) and (c) requires that prior to each shipment of licensed material, the licensee shall determine that the package is in unimpaired physical condition except for superficial defects such as marks er dents and that each' closure device of the package is free of defects. The licensee

, maintains that the crack was superficial in that it had no safety significance with respect to the retention capability of the lid and

- container integrity was not affected in that it was not a through wall crack. 10 CFR 71.12 states that a general license is issued to any licensee of the Commission to transport licensed material in a package for which a certificate of compliance has been issued by the NRC. 10 CFR 71.12(c)(2)

states that this general-license applies only to a licensee who complies with the conditions of the Certificate of Compliance and other applicable requirements of Subparts A, G, and H of 10 CFR 71. Certificate of Compliance 9069, Paragraph (a)(3) states that the package is constructed in accordance with Westinghouse Electric Corporation Drawing No. 1581F50, Sheets 1 and 2, Revision 1. After staff review of Drawing 1581F50, Sheet No. 2, Detail D, we have concluded that .the drawing requires that " upper and lower ratchet binders must have a 1/8" weld all the way around."

As stated in the Notice of Violation, 10 CFR 71.87(c) requires that the

licensee determine prior to each shipment, that each closure device of the -

packaging, including any required gaskets, is properly installed and secured and free of defects. A crack in a weld which is required by the drawings

.for the container is more than a superficial defec In addition, the determination that the package closure devices are free of defects must be made prior to the shipmen We therefore conclude that the violation occurred as stated in the Notice of Violation.

, The first of the five tests in 10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C, paragraph V.A for not issuing a Notice of Violation is that it was 'dentified by the license The crack was discovered by the recipient upon its arrival at Oak Ridge National Laboratory - (ORNL) on August 21, 1984. The licensee was then

,

.

o . o

2 notified by ORNL of the defec Since the problem was identified and reported to the licensee by the recipient, it does not meet the first test'

for not issuing a notic .

.

0