ML20059G898

Insp Rept 70-1257/90-03 on 900813-17.No Violations or Deviations Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Radiation Protection, Maint & Surveillance Testing,Transportation of Radioactive Matls & Criticality Safety

ML20059G898
Person / Time
Site:	Framatome ANP Richland
Issue date:	08/31/1990
From:	Hooker C, Pate R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V)
To:
Shared Package
ML20059G897	List: ML20059G894 ML20059G898
References
70-1257-90-03, 70-1257-90-3, NUDOCS 9009140020
Download: ML20059G898 (7)

Text

4<,

rv>.

p: w #n ~

m w.

m,w:,

,i d~

a.

a.

m d:

L

'p -

a.

.,O

%iC w m g

,a

??

h;p;>, g 9; y & v, s

p

- 3 l

'I N@p,,L@

as y,

o a y c,;,

y y

v:

g-4 c

s 3

y

%@a c '

1 ti-s o

-pf L# [,,*w

,N,,

U. S;1 NUCLEAR"REGULATORYrCOMMI,SSION L,, T

J'l

. al e

y

+v c,'

,* +

Q, i

REGION'V

+

~

c

"' p ya..

~

y

+

s 4.',./J

'Rbpo.rt No ?70-1257/90_-032 J

s 1 r 'q e

,J "b'

E I

[

t

! Docke't' No. 70-1257.-

W 's >

E.

W!

i m'

e x v 4

JLiceri$.NobSNMd227-1 ' [j. N)

% A tO Y m'Y y

n a

6 T-

mi

'~

a.

1 s,

w,

,t,

~ s - s.

1 e

- J,,

V P'riority:

0:

. Category:;ULFF(

• Safeguards Group: III';

y

~

cm

+

1 e

Licenseef A'vanced Nuclear Fuels",Ilhc.-

g' a

2.\\

~

d g

L 2101 Horn. Rapids Road

?,

N

~

Richland,1 Washington; 99352-0130'

• h 1-s.

2

+,

t o-w 0

~

g 1

,S V FacilityName:LdvancedNuc1NarFue[s!rInc.9

.~ De i

d

• %b j!

p, l[

7 Inspection at:.Richland, Washington

/

A mu c.

y m

@fl InspectionCondUctedi~ August 13-17,n1990 O

I

{

[ l.

+ Inspector;?

dgf

= Ph//#6 5

j g4 ": >,

6 '

CeA.;Hookerg Fuel Facilities Inspectore>

' Date: Signed.

h Approvedbpi Qu

%dk k7/ ftPi

^

E,m

'i

. Robe ~rt'J.E PKte, thief 4'

{'

DhtefSigned.

e

. U.

Nuclear Materials and-q T W' '

Fuel Fabrication Branch 1

=-

t m

3

^m W

' - JSummary:

si c

3 e

H l Areas: Insectedi This'sas a routine unannounced inspection offlicensee action" i

g

,t.on pyeviousf inspection findings, radiation protection, maintenance and a

&aam*

curveillance testing Lsanty. ' The inspectio: transportation ofl radioactive materials and-criticality s

n'also2 included tours of;the licensee's facilities., ~

1. r

.-: Inspection procedures 30703;uS2702, 92701i 83822,'88025, 86740 and 88015 weri 3

.paddressed.h d

,;r,

.s :.

.Results: --In the(areas inspected, the 1.icensee's programs appeared adequate to:

J

?the accompl,ishment of; their? safety objectives.,No violationsior deviations-

+s vwere identified.-

N n

u

'k A

b f

3 1

i s

y

,g V.

ett-i r

n a i

,q-4 t'u i

g 8

a

,, s lle j}

'l-lq q.-

,,y-(-]

9

% ;,) -

,f I

,"A l

/~. 3m

,m.

9009140020 900831 PDh ADOCK 07001257 PNV C

+3y, s, -

w m: =,

lll Kp h}gh, f*

j l

,f

}

f yx,L M &!

h a

M co

..A Q+4 7yf % - + & i};.

~

'%~+

l Wq&b ' '

M: iQ

+

9 ;& cq y

,,' l

& mJ " g) e w 4

b* ;.~

,, w m* -

kyg ?,

i ;j 4

_t-.

t I"

D [' DETAILS

~

Q

~f ;

j-M t]m[p M' O(

},

• m y[

1 g<

EW J s dw e

4,

es, yy7

- <;4

- <y,

f v.

4'-

4 )V {

1

d. S {+ N*fP'$2 $'

t@Vib/

...f

p ig

,7 g;

'J4 y, -

p

,q-

,y 1

V-t

(('

5 g M My l1h, PersonsIontacted

, i,,' " y.u R

,.e t

i 4'

+

3 m,y p ;

,47*

"An Addanc, e..d' Nuclear. Fuels- (ANF).

. L.

m 4

m

-n y, y%(.

1 m,.

4 t s t.

p; N]:(~e.- A

• R G.iFrait Vice President,xPlaN.tT0perationk j

f,(* *CJ W? Malody, Manager, Regulatory Compliance,*W. E. Stavig,iMan 1

c i^?

.J g,,i,:

• B._N.iFemreite, Manager,LManufacturingjEngineering N

• T. R.E Blair, Manager,i Electrical /InstrumentsJ(E&I)

N

$' N. u 5*R !L.'Feuerbacher,; Manager, Plant Operationst

~4j a

w" s

s 1a

'*D; 4 Mutch, Project Coordinator' s

o g

y f a.

.M.JG.-Hill, General Supervisop,' Chemical Operat' ions w?

j i

• R._GcFeaster,SupervisorkScheduling;'

s@j

.v c

i N. A.!Vaught, Supervisor, E&Ii d R H.;D.4 Dodson,< Super' visor, Mechanical =

"i

" - g?-

• LdD'.Gerrald,Cr.itical.itySafetySpecialist(CSP)

T.LC. Probasco.. Supervisor, Safety F

a c"

• J. E.sPieper, Health Physics 2 Specialist'-(HPS) i

• E.lL.iFoster,RadiologicalSafety. Specialist n

l a

e

• Denotesthhs'ehtiendingtheexitinterviewonAugus.t'17,-19$0.

g [ s],

t g4 n n.

n J ?

'In' addition tori.he-individuals. noted above, the inspector ' met =and' held N-

~

' discussions with other members'of the11icensee's staff.

1 1

4 N

i 4.

r lR 4

'L2..

Followup'of= Licensee Action on Violations (92702)'

s J

Item 70-1257/90-01-03 (Closed)L : Inspation. Report Nos; 70-157/90-01 and

[

02 describe the review of-corrective actions taken.by the licensee for'

, j'

-evaluating workers intakessof; uranium,:and the licensee'ls: plans toiamend:

4 the' bioassay: program describediin Part'ILof their License. ?The inspector 1 I, W, mW 3 noted.that by letter dated May 31,.1990,: theilicensee submittedca: '

an

-9 5, M,6 proposedtlicense amendment regarding1 changes in their. bioassay program.

l2

,%,/

,;Although the proposed amen'dment.was still -under review by :the NRC licens'e, i

L

' reviewer, the inspector considers that the licens_ee"has' completed their.'

i

,y committed actions as' stated;i@ their letter, dated March;23, 1990 5 The 1

3 finspectorconsidersthismatterclosed.

i r3? loll 6wupofnLicenseeActionon'0penItems(92701)

[

u W

• q' c

j, 70-1257/89-03-01 (Closed).

This item involved the' buildup of an

' R excessive amount of combustible material =(about 1273 used HEPA filters)'

w M.? k in the south end'of the Packaged-Radioactive Materials Warehouse (PRMW).

Bytletter< dated December 18, 1989, to the'NRC, the licensee described. ~

" j%

S

- actions taken 'and established a goal to significantly reduce :the

,)0 fi,;

inventory of combustible material in. the PRMW by July 31, 1990.

' Inspection Report Nos. 70-1257/90-01 and 02 describe a new system installed by the licensee for processing =and disposal'of-the used' 4

4, "

filters.

During this inspection,wthe = inspector noted that the-licensee 7+,,

'had been unable.to process the number of filters planned.

However, as of 3

/

4 Y j

i

.}.

,,+

s_

,n

.y

.. N

• W; D

j 4

,%mm

s o.m.g k hl b [ ?.

m qfm+m,hf kl l

f Y;

,h

>;t 3

a a

m Ag Q W[ g)g" ( Q;.

n ws,

n n

w

+im:

.c n

np sir (

2n hm

_.3 EN,

<W N evaluation is described in Section 4.b belowi 4

e 37 AF: f g 4L Radiation Protection'(83822)1

.a w

s.

N" ',

The inspector exaniined the licensee's program:for compliance with the

'+

%T

, requirements;of?10'CFR Parts 19 and 20, License Conditions, licensee 1 9

ha [

'I

> procedures and recommendation's' outlined in variousiindustry standards.

y M '@y ;

' Inspection Report.No. 70-1257/90-02 iocumented the pr~eviousJreview of the1

~

m J

3

^

4

F

' 11icensee's radiationLprotection program. ? This inspectionlwas primarily;

.a focused on the review of, selected activities since the previous jW

~ inspection' and observations during facility; tours.'

~

^.

y x;g a n.,

s x*,

La.- l Staffing and Program Controls %

,~

m" t

og

'The inspectorznoted that the licensee had recently hired three-a q'

industry qualified. health physics technicians ~ (HPTs) due' to -the j

expected retirement of one of their current staff,-~to fill the q

i l'

vacancy for.one HPT that had; terminated and one-to increase their

~'

d.

-current staff.fromseight to nine HPTs; The licensee was also in the

' process of acquiri'ng' a; qualified ' person to replace-their CSP whol will be? transferring to a new onsite position.

g

.b w

1. m Inspet: tion"RepobtlNo. -70,1257/90-02 documented that.the licensee was in the process 6f contracting for an-independent evaluation of their f

D HP program.i The : licensee informed the inspector that the onsitet cportionLof1 the evaluation had recently_been performed and'that.a-

- report was forthcomingcfrom the contracted, firm.

The contractors' j^

report will be reviewed in a future inspection, r

n 0*

b.

LBioansay

+

t 3

m F<'

'The previousainspection described an on going.licens'e'e evaluation'of 1

an individua11that had a history of low lleveltpositi've (U-235) lung:

,5 f counts, and the need'for the licensee more aggressive in determiningi i

y Y

T the consequences oftthe-lung count data.' Based'on; discussions with, the HPS and review of a report documenting an updated assessment of k'

3 P

G

.this individuals bioassay (urin ~alysis an lung" counts) data, the d

,,i' y

tinspector determined'that there was no indica, tion that th,e limjts o.

specifiedain 10.CFR 20.103(a)(1) had been exceeded for. a single intake. orfa_ continuous; intake of radioactive material ~.The licensee; lP had been unable to determine the specific cause.of the' positive lung b

counts.

However, the licenseethad identified a few possibilities related to this individuals work ^ habits which he._had been requestie'd 4

.to alter.

The licensee was also:continui'ng with their monitor,ing of

+

.t t

/*

(F d

.~ 'i.

t

., 7.,

5 4

3

3+

.~

,e y-.

m

~

y je T@; 7,p.

(ps%C &. y,:

'p, xr y gg'

.'3;,>

@%m)g. ; g i_W

]

V i

f&

F 4

~

n w

. ~

o g,.,

' h,( [

'g

{ h^:.,,,+ -.

- ~

'4t--

?

,p

~

4 QdW o f:E I M N thistindividual's work Aabits and-frequent inWivoimeafsurementCasLanlE # ?'M

+

laid in determining thefcause o_f.this, individuals; positive l lung?

AY g ? ',M

~

Qb' j-Counts.

+

4 s *m' e

n

'}f 4

(Th'eLifspector siso reviewed urine ~ samhl'e~ results~ and lung lount idata--

Wi

~

^

',A Lof severaliother selected individuals with positiveLbioassay=.

~

5 (measurements.':. Based on the review ( discussions with'the HPS and; m

3 a;

e

1. qq# ~

s f

ind pendent chiculations, it appeared that no' individual had,.

exceeded the 40-hour 10 CFR 20, Appendix B, Footnote =4111mit for low i ~

+'

y v + E. "a

' enriched soluble uranium or the 40-MPC-hour control measure

+

M-a

,I specified:in 10 =CFR;20.~103(b)(2) to warrant'further" licensee 1

,,' 4 1%j L E4 investigation..~

~

~

I Ng, 9

.O a

ATi

c.

' Control: of Radioactive Materials 'andlurveys e f

l e, m, ' s,,

a aOf l-i.

.~

(ly 3 -

7o During' facility tours, theiinspector observed that adequate personnel, survey (instruments were conveniently' located at exits'from '

f s

I

contaminated areas. Workers were observed to be dressed in-

protective clothing as specified in their radiation, work procedures.

t p

s 1TheLinspector also noted.that radioactive matarials and; radiation

• ',W U(#+

areas were posted in_accordance with:the. requirements l delineated in ?'y 10 CFR Part 20, and no.. suspect contaminated items were'~ observed int -

clean waste' collection: bins,' as observed and documented:during thel s

y

L*'

previousiinspection.,

b y

W "w h The" license #s. program appeared adequate to accomplish:theirfsafety Eob'jectives.4 N,0. violations or Ldeviations were identifiedy

~

~

~

g 5'. E Maintenande/ Surveillance Testina'(88025),

4 3

o w

Ll, 9 The; inspector.reviewe~d:and discssed the licensee's program with "Ll Mk cognizant licensee representatives.x<The inspection also included a t

Y review of the licensee's procedure's',2 work orders (W0s) and engineering',

3 g..

change notices:(ECNs), and records of routine and non-routine. maintenance w,s

.A and calibrations.- The-inspecto.r1also" observed maintenance activities 1 n,wJ,

.n g

't' during/ facility tours.

4

.'3 p

Qq y y' a a.

Preventative Maintenance-(PM)L j

w;

~

h fMk'.

The01icensee's' preventative 7 maintenance ^and instrument repetitiveo j-f?

l1 maintenance,(calibrations ~and equipment tests)' programs.were4 r

s c

maintained on a(commercially supplied. computerized maintenance'

@l y4 ^

. issue an.nt' system (PERMAC).

The PERMAC system'was used to1 schedule, :

manageme 3

W" O ; "'

d track PM activities for maintaining plant equipment,;

t

,y s

facili. ties, systems and support activities.

The PERMACLsystem also F

%" M interfaced equipment, W0s and cost for PM management.JThe:PERMACE t

• 'l 1 system listed about 1460Jitems for routine =PM and-~about 1600 7

O1 n

4 FM instrunient repetitive mai' tenance'(IRM) items.

PM;and IRM:

n w

frequencies were b'ased on either,the manufactures and users Q

~[j ^,

provided maintenarice' history and on-hand spare parts' for each item.'

recommendations and/or requirements of thel License.

The system also 4e 4

Procedures fon PMs and IRMs adequately delineated personnel responsibilit'ies and authorities for various sections off the'

[

licensee's programs.

.3

?

g i

3 l

{,

3..,,i- '

s

,b q,

H g

k

q me myi 4

g jM4;7

' WJN

,T d

c~~h$g(( Ns N:

hh s'

'l,Y N 4, Ud

\\)%34

'D h>

th hgW ;.

,,7

~;4..

ji y

p e

3 u,w 4

,w iC j[" '

[N Y

,, p

jy' g

4, IY e

• 3

^

y,,y 3

+3_

"j.

t

$ &[yp c'

.D s

1. Ths3eview of criticality monitoring system calibrationsItesting of' WF J#

'X Jventilation systems)and other systems'specifiednin:the license-have 4

,n 1

N 7 A.g y

,. b~een' described;in previous; inspection reports..

d A

u-r,

,a y

U

^

LDufingthis:inspectibnJthe' inspect $r,reviewe'd"ricordsoffselected

.]

M u-41RMs; conducted during thelast two ye'ars for item 0 important to

~

u;

,?v fs Asafety7nd/or planti operations. "The review included:

(1) Line-1

_ Tscintering: furnace. temperature controller and profiles,. (2) the UO 3

Building work area hydrogen; gas monitoring system,-(3) Line-1... ;2

J, 4'

lcalciner temperature controller, (4) Line-1 calciner differentia 1' N

pressure transmitter, (5) Line-1 calciner flow control valve, and.

R

-Wlg.

(6)~~Line-1-temperature.-controll.er for No. 1 UFc vaporization 1 chest; Z

gyJ 1The inspector noted;that'calibratim and tests were conducted usig -

y established procedures, and;at:the =requencies-specified41n'the 1

1. s.A' licensee's IRM program.

PMs and IRMs. document as-found-conditions,-

1 3

e<

which were tracked with each item's' history.

Calibration: equipment a 3' 9'

g and standards'used we're also recorded'and tracked with IRMs.

0ut-of-toleran'ceireports(OTRs)wereinitiatedwhensuchconditions-s 2-Tere dound.--OTRs were reviewed for corrective. action byl engineering' i

h ;L

.tnd mana0ement,.as_ appropriate for) safety and non-safety related y ~~

l a

e equipment.

.i y;

In:regaYd't6trainingandqualificationofmaintenancepersonnel,

'(millwrights; pipefitters, electricians.and intruments), the ~ +

inspector noted that these individualsiwere' State-certified 4

+

Ljourneyman in their respective field of work.

On going training

• i!

L' consisted'of various'tachnical courses'provided by outside vendors

< on: specialized equipment and/or'the responsibl,e system engineer.

a 7

,a E

n,

-b.

(W0s)"

m s

[:,

The -licenseefs.-program consiited of t foutilieItype W0s for,repairsf and!J -

y'.

Lchanges/thatididinot alter"the process, products or facilities;iand' y

"(-

' administrative' control! procedures provided ade,quate?guidanceffo6 1

breakdown'W0s forLminor>11mitedescope repairs.

Established 1

y

,dinitiating'andprocessingofW0sincludingds required'reviewstand 6

approvals;

special ~ permits for activities nvolvingTshutd&n of l?^

noperations, welding,= lock' andTtag controls,' barrier, penetration,.

g m

excavation; and! criticality. safety evaldations.t With thel exception l

of;the'brekdown W0s, all'W0s wereerevjewed by thessafetynsupervisor

" -l s

1 for industrial; safety,' radiological.andlnbclear safety concerns.

l' 44

-e

,Q g,;

~'M were also prioritized based on safety,' productio,n needs, Leconomics: and' visibility;,,, '

p r

3 y:

3 lX.1; c.

'ECNs, y

[

c p

2 s;

ee procedures, the 6

L Based on atreview 'of selected ECNs and!1'iceris.

inspector noted that ECNsswere processed to document the installation ofe new equipment",-facilities'and service's and>

modifications'to'such items.

The licensce's administrative.

J s

procedures'provided adequate guide:e and criteria for' initiating

,ECNslincludingi management and engineering reviews, hazard analysis L

!and safety evaluations (license compliance, radiological, criticality.and industrial); and required special permits.

For ECNs y

/

q:

e 1

8 u h.

r

~ l>

f

,4

~

~

h' ~~ s. + 'k f q M F M < M ?' W TCJ3m m-y ga h.t 3 ;A 4

4w

, n m

^

t.,

i e<

s m' ~ N.

x m 1 4.g., e n ; -

t' 2

4 a

%n :

'l 5."' 9'4' p~&:,

.l y p q Agg. A - l

e 1

'f pi Mf q g Y

b<

@i,%.7, qf &'E D a

+

y

~

,'s Mn m

, ;h #-

.x

e m

!UN ; x x

',I -

• 5 38 h[y;7,1[; j~

'~

j

.W

,TY J. )7 3..

w..

=

o

'^

u-

$j W involving SNMs physic'al" reviews w,ere required byithe criticality 4;

Y.

.L

,4 nW"

' safety review team priorito tht, introduction'of SNM.'--Physica1x t n

N

?

inspections were also performed for, radiologica1 Land'industria1>

P.

L safety'concernsa ~ Work completed by'an ECN.was accepted through.

^

~

g/

.a

?

^either;a; functional: check or an acceptance test procedure.

7 aa y

g'

.Duringlfacjlity tours,no excessive /il o'rLothe/ liq'uids wer[obierved to-

.aj b :.e

belleak%g' from equipment:or? systems.1 Ventilation systems appeared to be af

'5,

' operating as-expected; Rackseforfstoring SNM appeared to be in tact and:

Le

,jt adequately maintained. -Good' housekeeping practices'were evident in most y

h 9

areastoured.i nG s

f p

+,1

,m E

EThe,1.ihensee's program appeare'd fu11yisatisfactoryJto Faccom'lish their I

^

p y" -

. safety 1 objectives. cThe.the licensee'.s maintenanceLand calibration s

$, Y program appeared, to be well managed in-accordance with current accepted

,f 6

?-

.nuclearJindustry standards.

No?violationsLor deviations were identified, j

m e

y V"<

66 < Transportation-offRa$ihactiveMathrials=(86740)'

s; i.

s.-

~..

,i'A

TheLinspector.revjewed the licensee's radioactive materials?

transportation program for. compliance with the requirements -of '10 CFR'

i( s

'Partsa20,J.70, 71'and:493CFR: parts-171 through 189.

V A <p et 3 ;V.

/.

v

<n s.u Quality; Assurance (QA) Audit, FF-89-07," Nucleat Materials Shipping.

~

d,

'A Containers," conducted November 6-9, 1989, was reviewed.

The audit was' FP. i'.

in'accoidance with.thellicensee's QA program requireme g

. conducted to verifyrthat transportation activitiescwere being conduct'ed, a

Ja gg w

( ? g?

sidentified/one findin'g" involving'the failure to have!a signature siace" Y4 3

9 74 Df ifor the~ fuel design ~manageMs approval. on, procedurei ANFP.~43101, " Slipping -

3

/ Container: Maintenance and Repair,'! which was subsequently corrected by, ,4 M,, y K* ' i

,j 4

c' f

' incorporating this required signature spaceito the procedure.

4 y

1 u y

,n, 9,

i Q~

^-

4' ir a1 JRecords; of se,ver - (selected' domesticiand over_ seas'shipmerits and receipt

- a, Ny/

M 9

Jof?SNMfromJanuary'1,'1990,through! August 15,L1990,were'examinet'

'- ^

^

$$f",

Various portions of preparationcand loadin' of a shipment,of UF g

4m reylindersLcontaining~ solid. uranium'heelswasalsoobservedduribg,the,'

f%,

$ inspection.. Based on the examination of shipping'recoids and n

7 observations *during gfacilityJtours : the inspector determined that thn -

m g

3 4

licenseelperforms receipt. surveys pursuant.to 10 CFR 20:205~;' transf u s of J

.SNM were conducted'in accordance with the requirements delineated 10'CFR J

4 y

.70:42 and'the regulatory requirements' forEtransportings radioactive,

(

materials contained in 10 CFR PartL71'and449 CFR Parts 171 through 189 e

f were being' met.# " Copies'of. current shipping package certificatlons~and

'iJ g6 transportation regulations;were maintained.

( ']

M, ~'.

The' inspector reviewed records of 5-year recertification testsafor the-

-F' Model.308 UF Lcylinders used by the license < The inspector noted that:

. i f

Kb: Li thetestswehe.performedinaccordancewithpackagecertification l

i

$7%v requirements 1by a contractedzState-certified boiler and pressure vessel C

j SW. sis:

,; inspector.

N L

s P.{

• r '

Regarding incidents, the inspector reviewed the circumstance concerning-

~

the licensee'.s receipt of three full boxes of low enriched uranium fuel 0 "

. pellets on May 14,1990. !The boxes of fuel had been returned with. a h

4 t

W[ ' ".

(

t

&)% '

Y f-g b

b j,

4e p

%,x

W N f, %p [-m p'm,+p W s~J.

1 cv e.

- _ m,

,m 4

hhh. pag y ' -

p A #.

g s

s.

y,

,s s

e h

/* ["+6I

..v lI

@m.u%w,,,

et m

s

_m st i

e a4

~

hb b

h?1 7

!4 3

$ [

[$ L sshihnent sh empty CE-250fskippyri[contain'ersifrom k. heir l o've'rse'asifacilityb h,

% gig 4

-f(ANFGmbH);in;Lingen,_ West; Germany #;Theinspectormade"thefollowing1

?

WM 7

~

~

^'

ODE f3, Lobservations1regarding this~ matter:s

'j e

m v.c s

n @g,

' (1) 4.The' licensee had shipped the CE-250 containers ioaded with metal'

,u p

k

P f

+,.

M boxe' cof: fuel pellets' to ANE-Gmbli'on Apri149,19901 Tiie CE-250 '

?>

s z,;w ?, '

. containers were to be unloaded and returned as empty containers.

~

4,#a g

(2Nx.n'May 14,1 1990,ittielicenhee.receivedtheCE-250containerslabeled 1

ym' g y #n fas being/ empty.

During"a; receipt: survey,'the;HPT< staff observed %w; i

• ?

, level'.radiationEreadings;from,twotof the supposedly empty,CE-250 ' '

4 7e

. containers.; Further licensee investigation identified -the three 1

1

e%, M g,

/ 4 boxesoffuel! pellets,whichhadbeenshipped[toANF-GmbH?onApril H

_ 9, 1990.

. 'i J~;t t

9

m m

y.

y~

n.

mv D;#

(2)/The; Licensee 'immediately h,ontacted ANF-GmbH and notifled _the~'NRC byL 6*

"f' c telephone' of their.' findings.. ANF-GmbH notified the foreign iautiorities (EURATOM) of the matter on May 18,.'1990.. > The liceriseeL j

i W

,j alsi submitted a reported describing the. incident tosthe'NRC by?

l<'

tietter:datedMay29ll1990.

q%

~

4 g

?

's t.

.J J8asedon:re'viewofthis? incident,-the'..inspectorldeterminedthatthe' i

, y#,

f 1

lice'nsee:took'immediate ' appropriate--action 5 regarding this matter.

F 4

o m

1 e

W, The licensee's performance inathis' area" appeared adequate'and their H

9 > ip program'seemed capable ofs ac'complishing its) safetyfo_bjectives."'No U

4 1

a

/^

^i violations l or' deviations werehidentified. '1 ;

i (&

3

, 3h:

t k

e m

Q 77.

' Criticality Safety (88015) q"'.

' L 1

j w'

y f

1

n,

N W W

1J M, %,4.

1 Inspection, Report;No. 70-1257/90-01 and,02 describeiphevious inspbctiony,~

3 1

C activities lin this crea.1 Thifinspection was primarily; focused on-observations (made during facility tour.sfand discussions with cognizant Q,

'(t r,rsonnelf

]

~i l J)q b

y, b

~

(

8

.- 4 i )

T.

iThe inspector toured selectedKfacilitiesito observe currentioperationss t

4 s

b' %

and criticality controls. The inspector' observed:no problems with J"

as 1 posting of criticality control limits lor poorferiticality safety practices in the' areas" toured.

Criticali_ty: monitoring systems wer:e"notedt i

3

~

to be functional in the areas"where they were requiredT g

d%

• q' 1No'_ violation's,or deviations were' identified.

9 4

i uy ' M 8.9 Exit Interview, e' '

o W, W The in n ector met with the licensee representatives, denoted'in Section

(' + 11p at t1e conclusion of the inspection on. August 17, 1990.

The scope and l

4

. findings offthe inspection were summarized.

9 m

?

The licensee mas informed that no' violations or deviations were d,

d j

e V identified within the aress inspected.

_1 N;

,5 x[. _.

i 4

'O (fr a

)

__.__.,__________I.

1. u ------

^*

+

'