ML20039D021
| ML20039D021 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Westinghouse |
| Issue date: | 11/09/1981 |
| From: | Coryell G, Mcalphine E NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20039D009 | List: |
| References | |
| 70-1151-81-14, NUDOCS 8112310224 | |
| Download: ML20039D021 (5) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:~ UNITED STATES o,, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION n { E REGION 11 o 101 MARIETTA ST., N.W., SUITE 3100 A, GEORGIA 30303 o 9 1981 i Report No. 70-1151/81-14 Licensee: Westinghouse Electric Corporation Nuclear Fuel Division Columbia, SC 29205 Facility Name: Columbia Plan; Docket No. 70-1151 License No. Stei-1107 C U ff -{' / Nz <_.M/ // 9' # / Inspector: G.P.Corpll [ IIate' Signed Approved by: [D*O hm 11 / 9 / 9 1 E. J. McA1 Aine, Chief,\\ftaterial Control and Date Signed Accountability Section SutVtARY Inspection on October 19-23, 1981 Areas Inspected This routine unannounced inspection involved 32 inspector-hours on site in the areas of operations, nuclear criticality safety, facility changes and modifi-cations, safety committees, training and procedure control. Results Of the six areas inspected, no violations or deviations were identified in five areas; one violation was found in one area (Failure to provide free drainage capability for some feel assemblies). ~~y 8112310224 811216 DRADOCK07001gSy
DETAILS 1. Persons Contacted Licensee Dnployees
- M. D' Amore, Manager, Columbia Plant
- W. H. Britton, Manager, Manufacturing
- W. L. Goodwin, Manager, Regulatory Compliance
- E. K. Reitler, Jr., Fellow Engineer C. F. Sauders, Manager, Radiological and Environmental Engineering H. T. King, Nuclear Criticality Engineer G. T. Lowder, General Supervisor, Conversion and Scrap Recovery W. H. Condo, General Supervisor, Waste Recovery and Disposal F. Shatter, Manager, Mechanical Manufacturing L. R. Turner, Supervisor, Waste Recovery and Disposal W. L. Barber, Supervisor, Conversion and Scrap Recovery D. E. Mathews, Manager, So;ety J. L. Weatherford, Jr., Manager, Health Physics Ope:'ations H. T. Shannon, Regulatory Compliance Engineer R. J. McCormack, Process Engineer
- Attended exit interview 2.
Exit Interview The inspection scope and findings were summarized on October 23, 1981, with those persons indicated in Paragraph 1 above. The one violation was discussed and the licensee's evaluation and corrective actions for this item were reviewed in detail. 3. Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings Not inspected. 4. Unresolved Items Unresolved items were not ident1fied during this inspection. 5. Facility Changes and Modifications a. Project records for six facility modifications were audited for safety evaluation and approvals as required by section 2.3.2.3 of the license application and Regulatory Compliance procedures RC-202 and RC-300. No deviations from procedural requirements were identified. b. Four of the facility changes involve new or relocated processing equipment. These installations were inspected and found to confirm to the project description and criticality safety spacing or dimensional requirements.
2 c. The installations had been inspecced by the reviewer prior to release for operational use. Rec'-ds include a floor plan showing spacing requirements imposed * . trol neutron interaction as required by license condition No. ar. 6. Safety Committees a. The Regulatory Compliance Committee (RCC) meeting minutes for the six meetings conducted in the period January to September,1981 were reviewed. The plant manager and key staff members were participants as required by License Condition No.19. b. Agenda items included review of internal and external inspections, proposed facility modifications, license amendments, training, airborne activity, unusual incidents and emergency plans. The ALARA report for January 1 to June 30, 1981 was reviewed during the August 17 RCC meeting. This semiannual report showed a continuing downward trend in airborne concentrations in the controlled area. Plant effluents averaged about 8% of 10 CFR 20 limits. c. Additional Safety Committee activities include review of the facility safeguards system by the Safeguards Review Board and continuation of the work of the Airborne Radiation Task Force. 7. Nuclear Criticality Safety a. The criticality safety analyses for the facility modifications discussed in paragraph 5 above, were examined and verification made that the methods used were authorized by the license and that calculations were rechecked by a second qua',ified individual. Records show that a physical inspection had been performed prior to release for operational use. b. Ve 'fication was made that monthly criticality safety audits were conducted in accordance with a written plan as required by license condition no. 43. Safety audit findings are routinely evaluated by the RCC. c. During tours of the facility the inspector noted that_ some of the plastic wrapped fuel assemblies in storage did not provide free drainage capability althougn slits had been made in the outer cover as required by procedure. The slits in a few of the covers had been taped over or effectively sealed by folds of excess plastic. This was identified as a violation of nuclear safety criteria. (81-1-4-01). Section 1.8.1.5 of the license application states _that nuclear safety calculations for the fuel assembly storage array assumes that assemblies are separated at least one foot and will not retain water. d. Area supervision promptly provided drainage openings for the assemblies. Subsequent review by area management resulted in revision of the operating procedure to provide drainage as a final step. Area
I 3 personnel were informed of the procedure change and reasons for the change in work place meetings. The inspector examinei the revised procedure and confirmed completion of corrective actions on October 23, 1981. 8. Training a. License Conditions 32 and 45 require that snployees that work with SNM receive refresher training at least annually and written tests be conducted. Discussions with employees and examination of training records provide verification that all employees (and Daniels employees) received training in 1980 and all but 170 have completed training in 1981. Refresher training has been scheduled for November and December, 1981 to assure coverage of all personnel. b. Other training completed in the last twelve month period included a criticality drill last October and a fire drill in November,1980. Conversion area employees have received training in line startup and shutdown operations. 9. Procedure Control a. Manufacturing procedure MM-0, rev. 3, Control of Manufacturing procedures, dictates the format and style and define the methods for initiation, preparation, reviews and approvals of new or revised procedures. Procedure MM-10, rev. 10, covers preparation, approval, distribution and revision of operating procedures; Rework / Repair operating procedures; Supplemental Operating Instructions and Process Information Forms. b. Manufacturing Engineering drafts the procedure and R&E Engineering approval is required for procedures involving processing, handling, storage, inspection or movement of SNM. All procedures are reviewed and approved by Quality Control, Area Supervisor, Industrial Engineering and the responsible manager. c. Maintenance and Facilities Planning work requests and procedures are controlled and prepared in a similar manner and as defined in procedures FP-111, Rev. 0 " Maintenance Work Request Procedure" and FP-104, Rev. 0 " Planning and Implementation of Facility Projects." d. The irspector spot checked several procedures and found them -to be current and approved as required by administrative controls. Con-firmation was made that current operating procedu es were available in the work areas. 10. Operations a. Production operation and plant modification work was observed during the inspection period. Verification was made that procedures were available to the operators and technicians and that criticality safety
4 and radiation protection safety parameters and conditions were included in the procedures, b. Criticality limit signs were posted for work areas, storage arrays and transfer carts. General housekeeping conditions were good and no industrial safety items were identified. c. The inspector verified that vaporizer leak detectors were tested and operable, that remote closing devices were inplace for closing UF6 cylinder valves in the vaporizer chests and that valve covers were in place on UF6 cylinders. .-}}