IR 05000170/1986001

Ack Receipt of Informing NRC of Steps Taken to Correct Violations Noted in Insp Rept 50-170/86-01

ML20215M604
Person / Time
Site:	Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute
Issue date:	10/23/1986
From:	Wenzinger E NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:	Conklin J ARMED FORCES RADIOBIOLOGICAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE
References
NUDOCS 8611030053
Download: ML20215M604 (2)

Text

..

.-

OCT 2 3 E06

-

Docket No: 50-170 Defense Nuclear Agency Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute ,

ATTN: Colonel James Conklin, MC, USAF l Director Bethesda, Maryland 20014 Gentlemen:

Subject: Inspection No. 50-170/86-01(0L)

This refers to your letter dated April 29, 1986 in response to our letter dated March 5, 1986.

Thank you for informing us of the corrective and preventive actions documented in your letter. These actions will be examined during a future inspection of your licensed program.

Your cooperation with us is appreciated.

Sincerely, Origina1 Signed Byr Edward C. Wenzinger, Chief Project Branch No. 3 Division of Reactor Projects cc w/ encl:

M. Moore, Reactor Facility Director Public Document Room (PDR)

Nuclear Safety Information Center (NSIC)

State of Maryland (2)

bcc w/ encl:

DRP Section Chief D. Coe OL File 12.0 Region I Docket Room (with concurrences)

0FFICIAL RECORD COPY OL RL DNA - 0001.0.0 10/15/86 _rgro/

e611030053 e61023 0 g\

PDR ADOCK 05000

. . _ - - - . -

.-

.~

.

RI:DRP RI: R P kl.RP RI Dudley/bc Kel Kis".!r Elsasser WpMinger 10//6/86 10/ /86 10/ 0/86 10/3./86 10/ /86 app 0FF:CIAL RECORD COPY OL}HLDNA- 0002.0.0 DJ 10/15/86

.

DEFENSE NUCLEAR AGENCY ARMEo FORCES RADICBIOLOGY RESEARCH INSilfuTE BETHESDA, MARYLAND 20814 DIR 29 April 1986 01004 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mr. Edward C. Wenizinger Project Branch No. 3 King of Prussia, PA 19406

Dear Sir:

Dis letter is in reply to NRC examination report number 60-170/86-01 conducted by Mr. Noel Dudley on 6 January 1986. Mr. Dudley% report contains statements about the facility that do not accurately describe conditions in the facility. Bis letter is the requested reply describing measures taken to assure reactor safety, services, and fire prevention during the pending construction activities. %c Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute's comments concerning the NRC report (#50-170/86-01) are discussed beginning with page 3, number 3, " Summary of NRC comments made at exit interview," followed by license examination report, item number 1, " Summary of generic strengths of deficiencies noted on oral examinations"(see enclosure).

For information on matters discussed in this letter, the point of contact is the Reactor Facility Director, Mr. Mark Moore. He can be reached at the letterhead address or on telephone number (301) 295-1290.

Sincerely yours, l

Enclosure:

as stated {#3 MES J. CONKLIN Colonel, USAF, MC Director 3n ,

,

.-- . , , - - , . , . . _ _ - . - - _ - - _ - . . , _ , - , - - . . . - - , -.

.

'

.

.

AFRRI COMMENTS ON NRC REPORT 50-170/86-01

..

'Ihe following are responses to NRC Examination Report No. 50-170/86-01:

1. In item 3, paragraph 2, Mr. Dudley implies that fire extinguishers within the reactor facility had not been checked for 5 months. 'Ihe day fonowing his visit a survey showed that of the extinguishers in the faculty, one was dated Sept 1985, and one dated Nov 1985. All the rest were dated Dec 1985 (the Jan check had not been completed at the time of the operator's exam). In fact, the longest unchecked span noted on the unit tags was 3 months.1he base (NMCNCR) fire department was in the process of having a special hydrostatic testing done (off base) on all units in AFRRI, not just the reactor, and this would require about 6 months to complete as the testing is accomplished there wul be months shown as not being checked on the tags. ToHow-up checking revealed that1he'two units thateter.

Tudley had seen*8 sert returned from the pool of tested imits and had not been back

'long enough for a date in the regular monthly check. All facility units have been ehoeked and are current.

2. Item 3, paragraph 3, and item 4, paragraph 1, concern the same issue.1he operator licensing examiner viewed areas peripheral to the reactor area (equipment rooms) that were under construction and undergoing removal and installation of equipment, including the drining of concrete and the unpacking and placement of i electrical components. At no time did the Reactor Director state that he had no control over the areas. On the contrary, it was explained to Mr. Dudley that at

that time, the equipment rooms were involved in heavy construction work and as i work progressed, debris would be removed consistent with safe work practices. At no time did the area or materials in the area present any safety hazard to personnel or to the reactor systems. The following week, the areas in question were thoroughly cleaned and prepared for the next phase of construction. It should be noted that earlier and later inspections, including an unannounced operational inspection (No. 50-170/85-03) shortly before and a speelal security inspection shortly after (No Report No. to date) the license exam by operational inspectors have found this facility to have excellent housekeeping over the course of many years. Quoting from Report 50-170/85-03 " Facility tour . . . 'Ihe areas were clean, free of debris and well maintained."

Construction on this facility will continue for approximately 6 months. During this time the reester staff win perform housekeeping inspections en a frequent basis to

,

ensure maximum area cleanliness and that construction will not~lmpact the safety ~

' of the reactor or reactor systems.

3. We would like to point out that item 1, paragraph 3 has nothing to do with the exam given to the reactor trainees. Also, it does not indicate generic deficiencies on the part of the trainees. Instead, it is simply an opinion on the part of the examiner.

! 4. Item 3, paragraph 4, and item 4, paragraph 2, again concern the same issue.

l Mr. Dudley has relayed a situation in his report concerning management controls for facility maintenance and modifications that is inaccurate. AB items relating to reactor safety, reactor systems, reactor modifications, and reactor maintenance including records and procedures are current and available in the facility. The examiner, Mr. Dudley, did not ask to see any of these documents. 'Ihe reactor staff has a group of support test equipment, including voltmeters, current meters,

- _-_-- - - _,

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

._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

-

.

.

.

and electrometers, that are used in reactor calibration. His equipment is sent to

,

, an Institute calibration facility and their either calibrated or sent out for calibration. Als is accomplished under Institute procedures, not reactor facility procedures. When the unit is calibrated, it is returned with a calibration sticker in place on the unit. If a unit is out for calibration, a backup unit is always available in the faculty; if the facility does not have a spare unit, one is borrowed from the calibration group. %e records or " tracks" of any reactor system, safety or otherwise, can be readily produced in the faellity, the support equipment records are available in the appropriate area. AFRRI's record of previous inspections both NRC, and independent audit by the Office of the Inspector General, for example 50-170/85-03 Item 5, IG Inspection report, 21 June 1985 and IG Inspection 17 June 1983 TAB G, has shown the maintenance system used in the reactor facility to be more than adequate. his system ensures that the facility maintenance and modifications are performed in a planned manner that guarantees the safety of the reactor and reactor systems.

On the issue of as-built prints available in the facility as referenced in Item 3 paragraph 4, AFRRI contains far more than just a reactor facility. The AFRRI Logistics Department (LOGF) maintairs the building proper and the installed building equipment. Many changes have been made over the last 20 years. These changes are documented on building prints located in the LOGF office. However, because of the large mass of documentation, locating a particular item can

'sometimes be difficult for a newly licensed operator. AFRRI construction,

'

primarily on the facility air and ventilation system, is being conducted in phases.

A complete set of building plans is available as each phase of construction is completed. The scheduled completion date for the reactor area is September 1986.

nis construction was submitted to the NRC as a planned modification in 1983. It was approved in Aug 1984 with the new facility SAR. When complete, these modifications will be shown on a complete set of current as-built drawings. %ey will combine the drawings of the last 20 years, combining the various historical changes and the current modifications into one set of plans. %ese plans will be available in the reactor facility for immediate use by the facility staff as each phase of construction is complete.

AFRRI believes that the management controls for facility maintenance and

,

modifications are adequate to ensure the safety for the reactor and associated ( equipment.

l r 5. As a last point, item 5 indicates changes made to the answer key used in correcting the exam. It may be interesting to note that a significantly greater number of comments were given to the examiner. Most of these were not included on the comment page. Since they represent, from the facility point of view, incon-sistencies in the exam as written, they should be included in the comment section whether used by the examiner or not.

.

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