ML19270F944
| ML19270F944 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 07000824 |
| Issue date: | 03/09/1979 |
| From: | Kahle J, Potter J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19270F937 | List: |
| References | |
| 70-0824-79-01, 70-824-79-1, NUDOCS 7904090056 | |
| Download: ML19270F944 (6) | |
Text
ska m:00 UNITED STATES 9
8(
jo,,
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ri REClONil 0
.g 101 M ARIETT A STRE ET, N.W.
8 ATLANTA, CEORGt A 3o303 o,s,...../
R.eport No.:
70-824/79-1 Licensee: Babcock and Wilcox Company Post Office Box 1260 Lynchburg, Virginia 24505 Facility Name:
Lynchburg Research Center Docket No.:
70-824 License No.,
SNM-778 Inspector:_b ((' / b_
3/7/77 J. B. Kahle, Fuel ' cilities Inspector Date Signed Approved by:
g 7$
J. P.
ter, Section Chief, FF&MSB Signed
SUMMARY
Inspection on January 31 through February 2, 1979 Areas Inspected This routine, unannounced inspection involved 19 inspector-hours on-site in the areas of organization, 10 CFR Part 21, facility changes and modifications, safety committees, operations review, nuclear criticality safety, non-routine events and follow-up on survey for sludge buildup in liquid waste retention tanks.
Results Of the eight areas inspected, one apparent item of noncompliance was found in one area (deficiency-failure to record information in the Hot Cell Log Book in accordance with the requirements of the operating procedure paragraph 9.b(2)).
"[9e(09 co, '6
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Licensee Employees
- T. C. Engelder, Laboratory Director
- R. J. Beauregard, Hot Cell Supervisor
- A.
F. Olsen, License Administrator
- J. P. Doren, Accounting and Administrative Services Manager G. T. Shumaker, Purchasing Manager J. C. Hammonds, Maintenance Supervisor D. R. Logwood, Hot Cell Technician J. W. Cure III, Health and Safety Supervisor S. W. Croslin, Building B Supervisor F. M. Alcorn, Nuclear Materials Control and Criticality Safety Group Supervisor and Building A Supervisor C. A. Burnham, Building A Custodian K. D. Long, Accountability Specialist J. L. Harrison, Building C Acting Supervisor E. L. Maceda, Nuclear Engineer H. W. Webb, Nuclear Engineer Other licensee employees contacted included two technicians and two operators.
- Attended exit interview.
2.
Exit Interview The inspection scope and findings were summarized on February 2, 1979 with thost persons indicated in Paragraph I above.
Licensee represen-tatives acknowledged the findings regarding the apparent items of noncompliance and stated that corrective actions would be taken.
3.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings Not inspected.
4.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items were not identified during this inspection.
. 5.
Organization Verification was made that the facility supervisors' educational background and experience met the license condition requirements of a minimum of three years' related experience and a degree in the supervisors related work. The inspector questioned and discussed the fact that the Building A Supervisor also carried out the responsibilities of the Nuclear Safety Officer and the Nuclear Materials Manager, and the Building B Supervisor was the Health Physics Engineer.
It appeared that personnel who held assisting positions were occasionally utilized as facility supervisors, and were responsible for the safe operation and control of activities, and for the safe handling of byproduct and special nuclear materials within the areas of their supervision. A licensee representative stated that the facility supervisors had been selected on the basis of their qualifications and abilities to carry out laboratory supervisory respon-sibilities.
The inspector stated that the matter would be discussed with NMSS personnel during the current renewal of the license. No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
6.
Posting The inspector verified that Section 206 of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 and notices which described the 10 CFR 21 regulations, and the adopted procedures, and where copies were maintained were posted on the licensee's bulletin board in Building D.
b.
Procedures and Controls The inspector examined the R&D Division Administrative Procedure 1716-02, " Reporting of Defects and Noncompliance Pursuant to 10 CFR 21".
The procedure referenced the Corporate Policy Procedure 1716-A1, " Reporting of Safety-Related Defects and Non-Conformance" and the R&D Division Quality Assurance Manual, Section 16.0,
" Corrective Action".
These procedures establish procedures and controls to (1) evaluate deviations or noncompliance, (2) inform responsible officer of noncompliance or defect and (3) report noncompliance or defect to the Commission.
c.
Procurement A licensee representative stated that the purchasing agent relies upon the individual submitting a purchase requisition to inform him that 10 CFR 21 regulations apply to the item to be purchased. He further stated that this was usually accomplished by attaching a note to the purchase requisition. Licensee representatives agreed with the inspector that either the purchase order form or the
. purchase requisition form should contain a definite statement or check place ("Yes" or "No") that 10 CFR 21 regulations did or did not apply to the item to be purchased.
Licensee representatives stated that the purchase requisition form would be changed to add a "Yes" or "No" reference to the applicability of 10 CFR 21 regulations.
d.
Records and Evaluations The records showed that on two occasions, 10 CFR 21 evaluations had been made, and that one event was reported to the Commission as a 10 CFR 21 defect.
e.
Noncompliance No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
7.
Facility Changes and Modifications A licensee representative stated that there had not been any changes to the facilities or processes.
The inspector examined the maintenance work orders which did not reflect any significant changes. A review of the Safety Committee Meeting minutes did not reflect any significant changes. No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
8.
Safety Committees The inspector examined the Safety Review Committee meeting minutes for meetings held December 12, 1978 and October 18, 1978. Items of discussion pertaining to license number SKM-778 were review of Building B operating procedures, NRC inspection reports, and review of the Safety Audit Subcommittee audit report. Verification was made that the membership, quorum and meeting frequency requirements were met. The inspector also examined the Safety Audit Subcommittee audit reports and verified that corrective action was taken when discrepancies were identified.
No items of noncompliance or deviation were identified.
9.
Operations Review a.
Procedures During tours of the laboratory, the inspector verified that the operating procedures for the hot cells were available to the operators.
Licensee representatives stated that the Building B procedures had been revised into a new laboratory accepted format and were currently being reviewed. They stated that these would be issued in manual form as the Building B operations procedures.
They stated that the operations procedures for Building C had been approved and issued and that a few procedures pertaining to handling,
. movement and transfer of special nuclear material in Building A would be developed. They further stated that the Health Physics procedures were being revised into the new format. No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
b.
Logs and Records (1) The following operating and maintenance logs and records were examined where no items of noncompliance or deviations were identified:
Primary Equipment Cell Sump Pump Loss of Power in Building Evacuation Alarms Storage Pool High and Low Level Alarms Hot Cell Fan Failure Alarm Pump Pool Gate Cavity Monthly Crane and Sling Inspection Annual Crane Inspection Emergency Power and Fan Units (2) Examination of the Hot Cell Number 1 Log Book showed that there were no entries for the quantity of plutonium fines generated and accumulated in the cell and that the supervisor had not initialed the space in the log showing that he had checked the calculations and agreed with the amounts. Hot cell procedure BW-HC-110, "Zircaloy Cutting Restrictions",
require that the operator calculate and record in the log book the quantity of zircaloy and plutonium fines generated and accumulated in the hot cells. This is to ensure that no more than one curie of plutonium and 8 grams of zircaloy as fines are permitted in any one hot cell at any one time. However, it was apparent that the limits had not been exceeded. Licensee representatives were informed that failure to maintain the log in accordance with the operating procedure was an item of noncompliance.
c.
Housekeeping The general housekeeping conditions and the laboratory were adequate.
There were no apparent fire of safety hazards. The inspector noted that there was an abundance of waste and scrap materials in the hot cells.
Licensee representatives stated that they were currently cleaning out the cells which would reduce the quantity of scrap and waste. No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
. 10.
Nuclear Criticality Safety a.
Records The inspector examined the records maintained by the Accountability Specialist which showed the balance of special nuclear material in each building.
These valves were verified against the records maintained and posted in several operating areas. The inspector verified that the Building A and B supervisors maintained records of the number of nuclear criticality units authorized and present in each material balance area.
b.
Postings During tours of the laboratory, the inspector verified that areas authorized to contain special nuclear material were properly posted and that quantities of material present were within the authorized limits.
c.
Storage The inspector veritied that special nuclear material was stored in accordance with the approved procedures and within the storage conditions and limits.
d.
Nodcompliance No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
11.
Liquid Waste Retention Tank The inspector examined the Liquid Waste Tanks and Pumping Log and verified that the liquid waste retention tanks were visually inspected for sludge af ter each dumping. A licensee representative stated that the log included all liquid waste retention tanks at the laboratory except one for Building A.
No uranium waste would normally be discharged via this tank; however, the licensee representative stated that they would inspect the tank for sludge buildup and, if any sludge were present, a sample of sludge would be collected and analyzed for uranium.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.