ML19318C732
| ML19318C732 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Westinghouse |
| Issue date: | 05/08/1980 |
| From: | Coryell G, Kahle J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19318C725 | List: |
| References | |
| 70-1151-80-12, NUDOCS 8007020220 | |
| Download: ML19318C732 (4) | |
Text
- () [
h UNITED STATES
/
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION j
REGION 11 101 MARIETTA ST N.W.. SUITE 3100 4,
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303 Report No. 70-1151/80-12 Licensee: Westinghouse Electric Corporation Nuclear Fuel Division Columbia, South Carolina 29205 Facility Name:
Columbia Nuclear Fuel Plant License No. SNM-1107 Inspector:
w
[ '~' f*4 G.P.Coryel{
[~
9e Approving Section Chief:
c-[d4 S / '/
J. B. Kahle', Acting Section Chief Date Safe ards Branch Date of Inspection: April 15-18, 1980 Areas Inspected: This routine, unannounced inspection involved 25 inspector-hours onsite in the areas of Operations, Nuclear Criticality Safety, Internal Review and Audit, Facility Modifications and 10CFR21 programs.
Results: Of the five areas inspected, no apparent items of noncompliance or deviation were identified.
800702 Wad
's DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted
- M. D'Amore, Manager, Columbia Plant
- W. H. Britton, Manager Manufacturing
- W. J. Hartnett, Manager, Materials
- W. L. Goodwin, Manager Regulatory Compliance
- C. F. Sanders, Manager, R&E Engineering
- E. K. Reitler, Fellow Engineer, R&E B. J. Bossick, Manager, Uranium Inventory R. O. Noe, Chemical Development Engineer H. T. King, R&E Engineer R. L. Ervin, R&E Engineer J. W. Heath, R&E Engineer R. D. Lewis, Supervisor, Chemical Macufacturing R. S. Peterson, Supervisor, Chemical Manufacturing Other Licensee employees contacted include five operators and two technicians.
- Attended exit interview 2.
Exit Interview The inspection scope and findings were summarized on April 18, 1980 with those persons indicated in paragraph 1 above.
3.
Licensee action on previous inspection findings Not inspected.
4.
Unresolved items.
None identified during this inspection.
5.
10CFR21 Implementation.
The Licensee has approved policies and procedures for evaluation of a.
deviations or safety concerns and informing a responsible officer, procedures establish reporting criteria, posting controls and impose 10CFR21 provisions on procurement documents for basic components. The following procedures were examined-1 (1) NFD Product Policies and Procedures - P-710 (Rev. 3), "Identifica-tion and Reporting of Significant Deficiencies, Unreviewed Safety Questions and Substantial Safety Hazards".
(2)
P-710-1, " Identification and Reporting of Substantial Safety Hazards (10CFR21) Relative to NFD Licensed Facilities. -
c
. 4 (3) P-710 attachment, " Identification and Reporting of Substantial Safety Hazards, Significant Deficiencies and Unreviewed Safety Questions, Revision 2 (OPR-WRD-600-1).
(4) NFD Purchasing Form 102, Revicion 2 "QA and Administrative ements".
b.
The inspector was informed that, at the Columbia Plant, the Safety Review Board evaluates reported deviations or safety concerns and determines and records 10CFR21 applicability. Records verify that no 10CFR21 evaluations have been performed since the last NRC inspection of 10CFR21 requirements.
Verification was made by examining purchasing records that 10CFR21 c.
provisions were included on basic component procurement documents.
The licensee has copies of 10CFR21 posted on facility bulletin boards.
6.
Nuclear Criticality Safety Seven nuclear safety evaluations of equipment changes or new processes a.
were examined to verify that approved nuclear criticality safety techniques were used. Selected calculations were examined for cor-rectness. Verification was made that the evaluations had been checked by an independent reviewer. Verification was made that the floor plan for the Recovery Area showed the SNM process equipment and fixed storage areas as required by License Condition No. 37.
i b.
The inspector reviewed the procedures for calibrating the criticality alarms. The radiation detectors are calibrated quarterly The system is checked weekly for operability and familarization. Ver.rication j
was made that the detectors were calibrated within the past 3 months.
During tours of the facility, the inspector observed that work stations, c.
process equipment and storage units are posted with correct criticality limits. SNM is stored in approved arrays and no deviations from posted limits were observed.
d.
The inspector was informed thut operating procedure attachments speci-fying ~ criticality and radiation safety requirements have been prepared, approved and distributed by the Radiological & Environmental Services function. Five operating procedures were selected and it was deter-mined that the procedures and safety criteria attachments are available to the employees as required by License Condition No. 31.
7.
Facility Changes and Modification Facility modifications.are initiated and controlled through use of a.
division and facility procedures that require multiple reviews and approvals prior to installation. Facilities Planning Department prepares conceptual and detailed design and construction drawings for i
r~
-~-
. a. the reviews as defined in NPD procedure FP-102, " Drawing Approvals".
The design package requires approval of all affected groups prior to installation.
b.
Facility change records for one conversion line rearrangement and vessel replacement were audited for required approvals and safety I
evaluation. The construction drawings and material and equipment specifications are approved as specified in Section 2.3.2.3 of the license application and implementing procedures RC-202 and RC-300. No deviations from procedural requirements were identified.
8.
Internal Audits and Safety Committee The inspector examined the monthly nuclear criticality safety and a.
radiation protection audit reports. Verification was made that the audits were conducted in accordance with a written plan as required by the license. The reports showed that items requiring corrective action were identified. Responsibilities and completion dates for corrective actions were documented.
It was apparent from the reports that audits are comprehensive in nature and covered radiation, criti-cality and non-radiological safety aspects of plent activities.
b.
Regulatory Compliance Committee (RCC) meeting minutes for the January 4, February 15 and March 21, 1980 were reviewed.
Confirmation was made that internal audit findings are reviewed by the RCC, other agenda items include ALARA activities, License Amendment Status and NRC inspection findings.
The formal ALARA report to the plant manager covering the six month c.
period July through December, 1979 was submitted on March 10, 1980 as required by License Condition No. 21.
9.
Operations During tours of the facility, the inspector verified that operating a.
procedures were available in the work area and were the current revisions. Procedural requirements and criticality control sur-veillance were discussed with several operators and technicians.
b.
Ventilation system installation and some line modification work was in progress during this inspection period. General housekeeping conditions are good and no industrial safety hazaros were identified.
4
._