IR 05000369/1994010

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Insp Repts 50-369/94-10 & 50-370/94-10 on 940322-31.Noncited Violations Identified.Major Areas Inspected:Licensee Program for Shipment of Irradiated Fuel
ML20029E418
Person / Time
Site: McGuire, Mcguire  Duke Energy icon.png
Issue date: 04/22/1994
From: Masnyk O, Mcguire D
NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
To:
Shared Package
ML20029E415 List:
References
50-369-94-10, 50-370-94-10, NUDOCS 9405180263
Download: ML20029E418 (4)


Text

.

UNITED STATES

[An accg*

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3"

&

REGION 11

T!l

101 MARIETTA STREET, N.W., SUITE 2900 5g ij ATLANTA, GEoHGIA 303230199

'+,,

-

p

.....

Report Nos.

50-369/94-10 and 50-370/94-10 Licensee:

Duke Power Company 422 South Church Street

'

Charlotte, NC 28242 Docket Nos.

50-369 and 50-370 License Nos. NPF-9 and NPF-17 Facility Name: McGuire 1 and 2 Inspection Conducted: March 22 - 25 and 31, 1994 Inspector:

b M S / N k h h (f % b Y-M '//

Orysia"M.IMasnyk, Safeijuatds Specialist Date Signed

'

Accompanying Personnel:

Lori Stratton, Safeguards Specialist Approved by:

Z(9I<t4 7/7' [ d io/

4 -?/2 #/ 4 David R. McGuire, Chi ~ef Date Signed I

Safeguards Section Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards Branch Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards SUMMARY Scope:

This routine, unannounced inspection was conducted in the areas of the licensee's program for the shipment of Irradiated Fuel.

,

Results:

In the areas inspected, a violation was identified.

94-10-01 A licensee-identified, noncited violation was identified in that the licensee improperly completed the DOE /NRC Form 741, Material Transaction Report.

i

.

9405180263 940422 DR ADOCK 05000369

-

PDR

_j

,-

-

'

'

.

REPORT DETAILS 1.

Persons Contacted Licensee Employees

  • W. Byrum, Radiation Protection Manager
  • J. Correl, Radiation Protection A. Capranica, Fuel Handling Coordinator
  • E. Geedie, Jr., Station Manager
  • P. Guill, Regulatory Compliance G. Harrison, Radiation Protection Specialist
  • G. Johnson, Radiation Protection Specialist
  • R. Quellette, Systems Engineering
  • B. Roesler, Systems Engineering
  • G. Walden, Nuclear Engineering

.

Other licensee employees contacted during this inspection included security force members, technicians, and administrative personnel.

Other Organizations i

G. Dixon, Nuclear Assurance Corporation D. Fields, Tri-State Motors, Driver / Escort J. Fields, Tri-State Motors, Driver / Escort

'

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

  • G. Harris, Resident Inspector
  • G. Maxwell, Senior Resident Inspector
  • Participated in exit interview by teleconference.

2.

Physical Protection of Shipment of Irradiated Fuel (81310)

,

The inspector reviewed the licensee's shipment of irradiated fuel to ensure compliance with 10 CFR 73.37 and applicable portions 'of DOT Requirements 49 CFR dealing with the transportation of radioactive materials.

The shipment consisted of a tractor and trailer loaded with a NLI 1/2 cask owned by Nuclear Assurance Corporation _(NAC).

The NAC Quality Assurance Manger was onsite to offer any technical assistance required.

The inspector observed the preparation of the cask for shipment.

The licensee utilized procedure MP/Q/A/7550/21, Empty NL 1/2 Cask Receipt and High Radioactive Material Loading and shipping' dated March 17, 1994, e

The personnel loading the cask had the procedure available, were

.

conversant with it and referred to it while working.

Quantative work, such as bolt torque, was double checked to verify accuracy.

-

-

-

-. -

c

.

Health Physics personnel used procedure HP/0/B/1004/09 Preparation and

Shipment of Processed Radwaste Materials and Irradiated Components,

'

dated March 17, 1994, to perform surveys of the cask and truck, to place all required placards and labels, and to prepare required shipping papers.

The inspector determined through review of paperwork and interview with licensee and trucking company personnel that the licensee had made the required prior notifications of state and regulatory agencies.

The shipment was accomplished by the Tri-State Motor Company. The two driver / escorts were interviewed and were knowledgeable of their duties, of the shipment route, and of contingency measures.

They demonstrated a

communications, duress and immobilization capabilities.

They were aware of arrangements made with local law enforcement agencies in highly populated areas. A communication center at the Tri-State offices is manned on a twenty four hour b: isis. The driver / escorts were aware of the need to make calls every two hours to this center.

A licensee radiation protection specialist reviewed the shipping papers with the driver / escorts.

These consisted of the Bill of Lading, Spent Fuel Shipment Type Quantity and RQ Calculation, the checklist for preparation of packages for shipment from procedure and a driver instruction sheet from procedure HP/Q/B/1004/09, emergency response information, and a Radioactive Shipment Record. These papers were complete and correct.

They were placed in an unsealed white envelope.

Another radiation protection specialist handed the driver / escorts a sealed brown envelope.

This onvelope was addressed to the B&W Fuel Company. The shipment was supposed to go to the B&W Lynchburg Technology Center (LTC).

Contained in the brown envelope was the DOE /NRC Form 741, Nuclear Material Transaction Report, which, upon review after the shipment, was found to erroneously indicate that the.

B&W Fuel Company was the recipient of the spent fuel shipment.

This licensee is not licensed to possess this type of material. Discussion with licensee personnel disclosed that this form was completed by an individual in the licensee's corporate office. The individual who completed the form had previously filled out the Form 741 for shipments to B&W Fuel Company. A licensee representative stated after review of the shipment, that personnel error contributed to the problem.

The driver / escorts stated that they were under the impression that the white and brown envelopes contained identical paperwork.

10 CFR 75.34 requires the licensee to complete inventory change reports, to be submitted on DOE /NRC For-741, Nuclear Material Transaction Report prepared in accordance with printed instructions.

These instructions are contained in NUREG/BR-0006, Revision 3, Instruction for Completing Nuclear Material Transaction Reports and Concise Note Forms.

These instructions give details on the method of completing the form.

Contrary to these requirements, the licensee incorrectly completed the form to indicate that the material was being transferred to the B&W Fuel j

Company.

The licensee has altered its method of completing the form to i

ensure that the individual doing so double checks the information about the recipient. This violation will not be subject to enforcement action-because the licensee's efforts in identifying and correcting the violation met the criteria specified in Section V.G. of the Enforcement Policy.

,

l b

I

'

'

-

.

.

Prior to departure, the licensee's health physics personnel performed detailed radiation surveys of the cask rad truck.

The inspector observed these surveys and found them in conformance with the licensee's procedures.

The licensee's instruments were appropriate and within calibration. The highest readings noted on the cask were 506.61 dpms per 100 centimeters squared removable contamination and 1 mr/hr at 3 feet.

Readings at the back of the cab of the tractor were equal to area background levels.

The shipment departed the McGuire Nuclear Plant at approximately 6:15 p.m. on March 22, 1994 and arrived in Lynchburg, Virginia, at approximately 11:00 p.m.

The Lynchburg Technology Center staff had departed by then, but had made arrangements with the B&W Naval Nuclear Fuels Department to advise the driver / escorts to remain with the shipment in the parking lot until morning.

NNFD provides physical security for the LTC facility. The NNFD security force day and evening shifts had been briefed on the shipment, but the night shift, which comes on duty at approximately 10:00 p.m., was not advised of the shipment. The driver / escorts were not aware that personnel would not be on duty at the LTC when they arrived. When they did arrive they found the road to the LTC secured. An NNFD security officer approached the truck and asked the nature of the driver / escorts' business.

They replied that they had a spent fuel shipment for LTC but showed the officer the envelope addressed to the B&W Nuclear Fuels Plant.

The officer escorted the shipment to the Nuclear Fuels Plant a short distance down Mt. Athos Road. The officer on duty at the Nuclear Fuels Plant had a standing order to allow Tri-State trucks into the facility without previous notification.

The officer signed the shipping papers and took receipt of the shipment.

The driver / escorts uncoupled the trailer and left it adjacent to the officer's post building at the plant entrance, took the shipping papers with them, and left.

They reported the shipment as having arrived to the dispatch office, which notified Duke Power Company.

The next morning, at approximately 7:00 a.m. LTC personnel noticed that the shipment was not on their property and the Nuclear Fuels Plant became aware that they had spent fuel onsite.

Duke Power Company was notified and advised NRC's Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards.

The driver / escorts were contacted by the dispatcher and advised to return to Lynchburg.

LTC sent a health physics technician to the Nuclear Fuels Plant to survey the shipment; readings were less than.5 mr/hr at 3 feet.

The inspector observed the shipment moved to the LTC grounds on March 24, 1994, at approximately 10:00 p.m.

On March 24, 1994, the shipment was transferred inte the LTC facility at approximately 8:00 a.m.

The driver / escorts had remained with the shipment overnight.

3.

Exit Interview The inspection scope and results were summarized in a telephone i

conference on March 31, 1994, with those persons indicated in Paragraph 1.

The inspector described the areas inspected and discussed in detail the inspection results. The inspector discussed the NRC's

'

understanding of the shipment movement and subsequent arrival at the wrong facility. The licensee was sdvised that a violation was identified in that the Form 741 was incorrectly completed.

Dissenting comments were not received from the licensee.

-

- -

.