ML20154R738

Insp Rept 70-0824/88-08 on 880912-14.Violations Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Mgt Controls,Training,Nuclear Criticality Safety,Operations Review & Maint

ML20154R738
Person / Time
Site:	07000824
Issue date:	09/22/1988
From:	Mcalpine E, Troup G NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
To:
Shared Package
ML20154R708	List: ML20154R706 ML20154R723 ML20154R738
References
70-0824-88-08, 70-824-88-8, NUDOCS 8810040342
Download: ML20154R738 (5)

Text

- - _ - _ . - - _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ - . _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

p gasu 3' "4 UNITED STATES j j i"

,. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS810N o e REOlON 11 101 MARIETTA ST., N.W.

,,,,, ATLANTA, GEOROIA 30323 Report No.: 70-824/88-08 SEP 2 2 988 Licensee: Babcock and Wilcox Company Naval Nuclear Fuel Division NNFD Research Laboratory Lynchburg, VA 24505 Docket No.: 70-824 License No.: SNM-778 Facility Name: NNFD Research Labcratory Inspection Conducted: September 12-14, 1988 Inspector: -

Iw G. L. Troup. Fuel FM ility Project Inspector 9NZ/8 &

Date Signed Approved by: b E. J. McAlpfne Chief bo j 9 !22 Date Signed

Material Control and Accountability Section Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards Branch Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards

SUMMARY

1 l Scope: This routine, unannounced inspection involved management controls, training, nuclear criticality safety, operations review and maintenance.

Results: Within the scope of the inspection, one violation was identified:

j Failure to complete required training by an Authorizer User of radioactive material.

l i

i l

I l

8810040342 880922 i

PDR ADOCK 07000S?4 C. PDC l

l h

l l

REPORT DETAILS

1. Licensee Employees Contacted

• F. M. Alcorn, Supervisor, Nuclear Criticality Safety

• R. L. Bennett, Safety and Licensing Manager

• A, F. Olsen, Senior Licensing Administrator

• S. S. Schilthelm Acting Supervisor, Health and Safety

• L. K. Trent, Manager, Regulatory Relations

• Attended exit interview

2. Management Organization and Controls (88005)

a. Organizational Structure The inspector reviewed the facility organization structure and the assigned responsibilities for safety programs and compared them with Section 2.2 and Figure 2.1 of the license application. No changes in the safety management organization have been made. Licensee representatives discussed several changes which are being considered but which will require a license amendment prior to implementation.

One change in the assignment of individuals was made in January 1988 when the Acting Supervisor, Health and Safety was appointed. This appointment was made in writing, and also appointed the individual to be a member of the Safety Review Committee. This appointment was consistent with Section 2.4.1 of the license application.

No violations or deviations were identified,

b. Safety Comittees The membership of the Safety Review Committee (SRC) was appointed in December 1987, and modified by appointments in January and August, 1988. The inspector reviewed the minutes of the SRC meetings since February 1988, and determined that the meetings were held at the required frequency with the required quorum present. The inspector also determined that the agenda for items reviewed were in accordance with the charter.

The inspector noted that an outside member te.g., not an NNFO-RL employee) of the SRC had not attended any of the mee*,ings held in 1988. The inspector questioned whether the SRC might not be better served with this individual in attendance or with someone else appointed to the comittee who could regularly attend. Management representatives acknowledged the inspector's coments and stated that this situation would be reviewed and action taken, as appropriate.

[IFI88-08-01]

l 2  !

No violations or deviations were identified.

3. Training (88010)

a. Section 2.6 of the license application describes the various training programs conducted for different groups of workers.

The highest level is designated Program 3 for Authorized Users (individua'Is who may enter the restricted and controlled areas and may work with radioactive materials). Section 2.6.4 of the 1

license application requires that Authorized Users be retrained '

annually, and that satisfactory completion of retraining shall be determined by passing a written examination. <

7 J b. The inspector selected six individuals at random from the list ,

of Authorized Users dated September 9,1988, and reviewed their i l training records to determine that the training and retraining  :

i was current. Five of the six individuals had satisfactorily I

completed retraining in April 1988. The sixth individual's file ,

shawed retraining in April 1987. Further investigation revealed  !

i that the individual had attended retraining in April 1988 and  ;

i achieved a satisfactory score on the radiation safety examination but was unsatisfactory on the Authorized Users examination. Additional training and reexamination of this 3

individual was intended but had not been accomplished.

i i c. The inspector identified this as a violation of Section 2.6.4 of I the license application in that an Authorized User had not been  !

retrained and passed the written examination. This was ,

j acknowledged by licensee management. The basic cause of the  !

individual being listed on the Authorized Users List (according  !

v to the licensee) was that the list was updated from the training [

l attendance list rather than using a list of successful trainees

! or a list with test scores on it. Licensee management stated  !

that as part of the corrective action, all of the training would  !

I bereviewedforsimilarproblems(V!088-10-02].

) 4 Nuclear Criticality Safety (88015, 08020, 88025) 1 I

a. Facility Changes and Modifications t 1 The inspector discussed authorized modifications with the cognizant  !

managers and was advised that no changes involving licensed materials '

had been made since the last inspection. One major modification which had been made was the installetion of new ventilation ducts from Building B to the exhaust fan and stack. The inspector  !

questioned whether the duct modification might have changed the air  ;

flow in the stack, and thus the adequacy of stack sampling. Licensee

! representatives stated that flow testing was underway on the stack to ,

establish the velocity profile, and identify any needed changes in ,

the stack sampler flow rate. The results of this testing, and any j 3

o f

}  !

3 corrective actions will be reviewed during a subsequent inspection

[If! 88-10-03),

b. Audits The inspector reviewed the Facility Supervisor Nuclear Criticality Safety Checklist for weekly inspections conducted May 27 -

September 8, 1988, and the Nuclear Safety Officer's quarterly audits for 3rd Quarter 1987 - 2nd Quarter 1988. One deficiency in records was identified and corrected. A The inspector also reviewed the Safety Audit Subconnittee (SAS) reports for the December 1987 and April 1988 audits. The final report for the August 1988 audit was not completed. The frequency, and audit members of the SAS audits was determined to be in accordance with Section 2.8.3 of the license application.

No violations or deviations were identified.

c. Critictlity Monitoring Systems The inspector reviewed the weekly functional tests for the criticality monitoring system alarrs, which are performed on a rotating schedule, and the semi-ant ual calibrations performed in 1988. During tours of the plant areas the inspector observed that individual monitors were operabic and that none were in a failed condition.

Licensee representatives discussed the addition of three monitors with the inspector. After facility rodtfications had been completed, a review was made of the adequacy of coverage of the existing nonitors. As a result of this review, three more monitors were installed to assure coverage. These conitors have been added to the weekly functional test and calibration program, and are being added to the rotating schedule.

No violations or deviations were identified,

d. SNM Containers Through discussions with the cognizant licensee individuals and observations during tours of plant areas, tSe inspector determined that no rew design containers for the handl'ng, storage or shipping of SNM were in use. Because of the types of operations perforred and raterials handled, no unfavorable geocetry :ontainers which require poison > (e.g., borated Raschig rings) for secondary control are in use in the facility.

ho violatiens or deviations were identified.

4

e. Analytical Methods  ;

The licensee had added the KENC-Ya code to the analytical methods used for nuclear criticality safety evaluations, based on SCALE ,

(Standardized Computer Analyses for Licensing Evaluations - "

NUREG/CR-0200). Validation of tne code and comparison between the KENO IVs previously used and KENO-Va using previous benchmark data was performed by a contractor. The contractor's report concluded j

i that there Nas no statistical difference in the results using the two

) versions of XENO. Additional calculations perforr ' by the licensee i

concluded that calculations based on the SCALE package (KENO-Ya) were

( statistically indistinguishable from calculations previously inade.

! These evaluations constitute the basis for utilizing the KENO-Ya code r i to perform analyses at the licensee's facility and for the two other  ;

i S&W facilities, i

I No violations or deviations were identified.

1  !

l 5. Exit interview I

i The inspection scope and findings were summarized on September 14, 1988, ,

i with those persons indicated in Paragraph 1. Management representatives

ackr

owledged the violation of training requirements and discussed actions t which will be taken to prevent recurrence. The licensee did not identify  !

j any materials provided to the inspector as proprietary. [

i o I

i q

1 I

a l

1,

!