ML19208B369
| ML19208B369 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 07000135 |
| Issue date: | 04/17/1979 |
| From: | Grier B NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | Dziewisz J BABCOCK & WILCOX CO. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19208B364 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7909200104 | |
| Download: ML19208B369 (7) | |
Text
._
M" *%
UNITED STATES c
l b {-[t NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
. ~D '*
j REGION t C
631 PARK AVENUE xina or, Russia eEunsvi.vania i,4as 9
+...*
Docket No.70-135 Babcock and Wilcox Company Nuclear Materials Division ATTN: Mr. J. S. Dziewisz Vice President P. O. Box 1260 Lynchburg, Virginia 24505 Gentlemen:
Subject:
Inspection 70-135/78-25 This refers to your letter dated February 13, 1979, in response to our letter dated January 26, 1979.
Thank you for informing us of your corrective and preventive actions for Items 3, 4, and 5 of Appendix A to our January 26, 1979, letter.
These actions will be examined during a subsequent inspection of your licensed program.
In your letter you took the position that Items 1, 2 and 6 should be retracted and Item 3 should either be retracted or the level of the item be modified from infraction to deficiency.
Region I has carefully reviewed your letter and " Specific Response" with the Fuel Processing and Fabrication Branch, Division of Fuel Cycle and Material Safety, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, and no valid reasons for the retraction of any of the items based on license conditions were found. A detailed reply to your letter and your specific response to Items 1, 2, 3 and 6 giving the reasons for the invalidity of your argu-ments for retraction of the items is enclosed.
Region I finds no reason to change the level of Item 3 from infraction to deficiency.
Concerning Items 1, 2, and 6, please submit to this office within twenty (20) days of your receipt of this letter, a written statement in reply including:
(1 corrective steps which have been taken by you and the results achieved; (2 corrective steps which will be taken to avoid further items of noncompliance; and (3) the date when full compliance will be achieved.
In your letter you suggested that a meeting might be appropriate.
As always, Region I will meet with you at your request.
074 155 79092 01) / Op
Babcock and Wilcox Company 2
Your cooperation with us is apppreciated.
Sincerely, 2
i Bo e H. Grier Director
Enclosure:
As stated cc:
W. F. Heer, Manager, Pennsylvania Operations
'\\ 'J b C; j Eh
DETAILED REASONS FOR NOT RETRACTING ITEMS OF NONCOMPLIANCE 1, 2, 3, AND 6 0F APPENDIX A, NOTICE OF VIOLATION, TO LETTER OF JANUARY 26, 1979 (INSPECTION NO. 70-135/78-25)
Item 1 In your letter of February 13, 1979, you stated, " Relative to Appendix A, Item 1, we feel this item as described is inaccurate and citation is unwarranted.
It is our position, as substantiated in our specific response, that this item should be retracted in its entirety." Contrary to this statement, we consider the item as described to be accurate and the citation to be warranted for reasons given below.
Reply to Specific Response 1 Your specific response indicates that you believe that you may assign an individual who does not have the requisite qualifications for a certain organizational position to that position on a temporary or " acting" basis without performing the evaluations and approvals required by section 4.b.1 of Specification 4.0.
Your license requires that you maintain the functional organization as prescribed in Specification I-4 at all times and the required positions are to filled by qualified personnel. Therefore, your position concerning the temporary appointment of unqualified individuals to an organizational position may be or may not be
' satisfactory, depending on the circumstances.
When you have a qualified or approved incumbent permanently assigned to and functioning in the position and this incumbent is temporarily not available to perform the function because of vacation or similar circumstances, your position is satisfactory.
However, as was the situation causing the item of noncompliance, when you do not have a qualified or approved incumbent permanently assigned to and functioning in the position and the temporary incumbent is the sole incumbent of the position, your position is unsatisfactory.
The above discussion answers your specific response a.
-n h
D
2 In your specific response b, you took the position that, "The Manager of Technical Control (R. A. Williams) assumed this office as Acting Licensing and Nuclear Safety Specialist upon the resignation of the incumbent (P.E. Fuller) on August 25, 1978. No evaluation was required for this temporary assignment."
This position conflicts with the position given to the inspector during Inspection 70-135/78-21 conducted on September 25-28, 1978. When the position of Licensing and Nuclear Safety Specialist became vacant on August 25, 1978, you took the following actions to have the activities of the function filled.
- 1) Mr. R. A. Williams, Manager of Technical Control, who was suitably qualified, assumed the Licensing portion of the function.
- 2) Tne Lynchburg Research Center Nuclear Criticality Safety Group assumed responsibility for the Nuclear Safety Specialist portion of the function at your request.
As was reported in Inspection Report 70-135/78-21, "The licensee has a letter dated September 13, 1978, from the manager of the Nuclear Criticality Safety Group to the manager of Technical Control with the subject, Nuclear Criticality Safety Specialist Position Vacancy, which documents the nuclear safety activities for which the Lynchburg Research Center Nuclear Criticality Group is responsible while the Nuclear Safety Specialist position is vacant.
The conditions of the license for nuclear criticality safety control were satisfactorily addressed in this letter." If you had taken the position that Mr. Williams, former Manager of Technical Control, had assumed all the functions of the Licensing and Nuclear Safety Specialist on August 25, 1978, during Inspection 70-135/78-21 without the evaulations and approvals required by your licensee you would have been in ncncompliance with your license.
Mr.
Williams did not have the required qualifications for the Nuclear Safety Specialist.
Regarding your specific response c, the reply to specific response b
also replies to specific response c.
Further, if Mr. Austin assumed the Nuclear Safety Specialist duties along with the Licensing duties of the Licensing / Nuclear Safety Specialist function, when he became Manager of Technical Control, the license required evaluation and approval for Mr. Austin to be assigned as Manager of Technical Control (including Acting Licensing and Nuclear Safety Specialist) should have considered the complete License / Nuclear Safety Specialist function.
Regarding your specific response d, the inspection report and Appendix A adequately stated that Mr. Foster was named Acting Manager of Compliance.
Regarding your specific response e, the foregoing replies to specific response 1, b and c adequately reply to your specific response e.
974 158
~
3 Your specific response f, addressed the timing for refilling positions. Your license simply requires that you maintain the functional organization as prescribed in Specification I-4 at all times.
In your specific response g, you do not refute the statement in the inspection report that, "Mr.
Foster has not been intimately involved in the radiation protection, i.e. health physics aspects of health and saf9ty."
Instead, you took the position that experience in the radiation protection aspects of health and safety are not required for the Acting Manager of Compliance position, and Mr. Foster's 20 years of industrial and related safety experience in the nuclear industry are sufficient qualifications in the area of health and safety.
In replying to this, we must return to the cause for the item of noncompliance.
The cause for the item of noncompliance was the fact that Mr. Foster did not have the requisite qualifications for the position of Manager of Compliance (acting or otherwise), and the license required evaluation and approval of the appointment of Mr. Foster to the position were not performed. Mr. Foster's 20 years of industrial and related safety experience in the nuclear industry may well have been part of the unique qualifications which you could have substituted for the base requirements while performing the license required evaluation and approval of Mr. Foster being named Acting Manager of Compliance.
Item 2 In your letter of February 13, 1979, you stated, " Relative to Appendix A, Item 2, as substantiated in our specific response, it is our position that this item should be retracted in its entirety."
After considering your position, we consider the citation to be warranted for the reasons given below.
Reply to Specific Response to Item 2 In this response you claim, "The intent of the condition was to optimize fire safety in unsprinklered areas by minimizing the amount of exposed combustible solid waste through utilization of localized confinement such as that provided by the cardboard boxes observed by the inspector."
In fact, the use of cardboard boxes does nothing to minimize the amount of combustible waste exposed to fire. However, more importantly, to the NRC the license condition is clear and straight forward.
The license clearly states that combustible solid wastes outside the confines of process equipment shall be stored in covered metal containers.
^ W]
\\
}v
4 Soley from a radioactivity contamination control point of view, your statement is correct that plastic bagged and cardboard boxed combustible contaminated solid wastes are confined to minimize airborne contamination.
However, this license condition is addressing fire hazards and fire safety, and combustible contaminated solid wastes outside the confines of process equipment must be stored in covered metal containers to reduce the fire hazard. This is especially important because the process areas of your facility are not only uncprinklered but they also do not have an installed fire water loop for water to fight fires.
Con-sequently, it is important that the combustible fire load in the process area either be minimized or protected from fire.
Item 3 In your letter of February 13, 1979, you stated corrective action for this itam. Then you requested that this item be retracted or that the category be modified to " deficiency" for reasons set forth in your specific response.
After considering your position, we consider the citation to be warranted for the reasons given below.
Also, we consider this safety related item to warrant the infraction severity level.
Reply to Specific Response to Item 3 Regardless of the reasons, it is a fact that your approved license application includes the requirement that glovebox static pressure be maintained at a minimum of 0.25 inch of water (negative) unless a documented evaluation by Health and Safety shows that radioactive material control can be maintained at a lesser negative, or positive pressure.
The use of static pressure gauges on gloveboxes as well as the weekly velometer checks provides an additional beneficial tool to operating personnel which allows them to be assured that proper ventilation of the glovebox is present at all times, especially when they are working with their arms in the glovebox. Also, the weekly velometer checks of airflows at the openings of ventilated enclosures to ensure they are greater than 100 linear feet per minute may not include checking of gloveboxes because the gloveboxes may not have any openings which are checked.
Item 6 In your letter of February 13, 1979, you stated that it is your position that this item as described is inaccurate and that the citation is unwarranted. You requested that this item be retracted 974 160
5 based upon the reasons set forth in your specific response.
We consider the item as described in the inspection report and Appendix A to our letter of January 26, 1979, to be accurate and the citation to be warranted for reasons given below.
Reply to Specific Response to Item 6 In your reply you imply that Mr. Foster began performing the functions of the Secretary of the Safety Advisory Board upon his assignment as Acting Manager of Technical Control on October 17, 1978. We believe the statements given in Inspection Report No. 70-135/78-25 in section 6, Safety Advisory Board, to be accurate. The inspector stated that, " Review of the minutes showed that since the September 1978 meeting the Manager of Compliance has not been acting as secretary to the Safety Advisory Board.
According to the license, the Manager of Compliance is to serve as secretary to the Safety Advisory Board."
o i,f,
\\N
~
-