ML19267A325
| ML19267A325 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 07000033 |
| Issue date: | 11/20/1978 |
| From: | Holody D, Joyner J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19263B155 | List: |
| References | |
| 70-0033-78-13, 70-33-78-13, NUDOCS 7901080082 | |
| Download: ML19267A325 (5) | |
Text
.,
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT Region I Report No. 70-33/78-13 Docket No. 70-33 Safeguards Group 1 License No. SNM-23 Priority 1
Category Ur Licensee: Texas Instruments, Incorporated 34 Forest Avenue Attleboro, Massachusetts 02703 Facility Name: Texas Instruments Inspection at: Attleboro, Massachusetts Inspection conducted: October 18-20, 1978 Inspectors:
D. J. Holody, Mathematical Statistician date signed date signed date signed Approved by:
M
///2o [7s J[.,Ii((oy'ner/ Chief, Nuclear Material Control daye si/jned MuppoYt Section, Safeguards Branch Inspection Summary:
Inspection on October 18-20, 1978 (Recort No. 70-33/78-13)
Areas Inspected: Routine, unannounced inspection by a regional based inspector of nuclear material control and accounting including: measurement and statistical controls, and ID and its associated LEID.
The inspection involved 17 hours1.967593e-4 days <br />0.00472 hours <br />2.810847e-5 weeks <br />6.4685e-6 months <br /> on site by one NRC inspector.
Results: No items of noncompliance were identified.
7901080067 Region I Form 12 (Rev. April 77)
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Principal Licensee Employees
- Mr. F. Sherman, Manager, HFIR Preject
- Mr. C. Hopper, Manager, Nuclear Materials
- Mr. D. Talan, Health Safety Officer
- Mr. S. Roman, Manager, Quality Assurance
- Mr. J. Heffner, Quality Assurance Engineer
- Mr. R. Brown, Group Director of Security
- denotes those present at exit interview.
The inspector interviewed other licensee personnel involved in the operation of the facility.
2.
Measurements and Statistical Controls The licensee's measurements systems used for accountability purposes consist of three balances and a gamma scanner.
Each system performs its own unique function as indicated:
1.
Sauter 800 Balance - This balance is used to determine the net weight of U 03 8 receipts, which is then compared with the shippers net weight.
If the shipper-receiver difference is not significant according to the criteria listed in License Condition 6.4 of Amendment f1PP-1 to License SNM-23, then the licensee accepts the shipper's values. As a result, the net weight determination from this balance is not used for account-ability.
2.
Mettler P-120 Balance - This balance is used to:
(a) allocate aU03 8 charge lot and (b) individually measure each charge of U03 8 from that lot. This balance is also used to measure the individual charge of the non-SNM filier material which is blended and mixed with the U 03 8 charge prior to compacting.
3.
Mettler Gramatic K-710 Balance - This balance is used to weigh the pressed charge (compact).
4.
Ganina Scanner - This nondestructive assay (NDA) system is used to determine the U-235 content of all waste, including waste generated during the compacting operation. The system is also used as an overcheck measurement for fuel plates.
3 In addition to these measurement systems, the licensee employs an independent contractor laboratory (Ledoux) to perform element and isotopic analyses on the U 0g receipts.
These data are also used 3
to perform shipper / receiver (S/R) comparisons.
Since the licensee accepts shippers values on receipts if the S/R difference is not statistically significant, the additions to process are based on the shippers measurements.
Removals from process, in the form of either finished plates, scrap, or waste, are based on both the shippers and licensees measurements.
This is summarized below:
Measurement Type *
%U
% U-235 U-235 Material Weighina Analysis Analysis Content U03 8 receipts S
S S
Finished plates TI S
S Scrap TI S
S Waste TI S indicated shipper's measurements.
TI indicates licensee's measurements.
The chart indicates that all the SNM, with the exception of waste, is shipped from the facility at the same % uranium and % uranium-235 values as received. Consequently, any inventory difference due to measurement uncertainty would result only from the uncertainty in the shippers weight of the U30, the licensee's SNM weight of 8
the finished plates and scrap, and the licensee's U-235 value for the waste. Any uncertainty in the analytical values would not affect the inventory differences. As a result, these analytical uncertainties are not utilized in determining the LEID.
(However, analytical uncertainties, both shipper's and licensee's contractor's, need to be used in determining the significance of a shipper / receiver difference.)
The inspection review covered the methods of acquiring appropriate error data for the measurement systems, the licensee's methods of determining their errors, the methods of utilizing these errors in calculating limits of error for inventory difference (ID), receipts and shipments, and some calculational checks to verify their correctness.
Additionally, the licensee's last audit of Ledoux (contractor analytical laboratory) on December 30, 1977, and the licensee's
4 last internal audit of the measurement control program (November 28, 1977 - December 30, 1977), were reviewed by the inspector.
The inspector's measurement and statistical control review covered the three material balance pericis from February 22, 1978 - August 30, 1978.
Independent checkweighings in the P1200 balance also were performed by the inspector.
Tra checkweighings indicated that the balance was operating properly.
Although there has been no change in the methods of acquiring data since the last review of the measurement and statistical control program, the licensee does intend to make a change for the material balance period that ended in October,1978, by eliminating the replicate measurement program for the scales.
The licensee will not utilize standards data for both random and systematical error calculations.
This approach is described in their measurement control plan which was approved by the NRC-NMSS and which became effective on October 20, 1978.
The methods of calculating errors are considered acceptable, although there were some minor mathematical oversights by the licensee, which they agreed to correct.
These oversights, which had the conservative effect of yielding smaller calculated errors, relative to the Sauter 8000 balance and include: (1) consideration of the rounding error (p2) only once instead of for both r xs and tare measurements (ap;Mies to both random and systematic m eor calculations);
and, (2) consideration of the errors associated with the standard only once, instead of for both gross and tare measurements (applies to calculation of the systematic errors).
Additionally, the licensee has not been receiving documentation of the uncertainty associated with their weight standards following the annual recertification by the Massachusetts Bureau of Standards.
The licensee agreed to correct these oversights.
The licensee does not receive the shipper's random and systematic errors associated with the weighing of the U 0g receipts.
The 3
licensee needs these errors for use in the LEID calculation, since the U 08 enters the process at the shipper's values.
In lieu of 3
this, the licensee utilized their own errors associated with the Sauter 8000 balance in the LEID calculation.
The licensee agreed to contact the shipper and request their errors.
This generic problem has already been referred to the NRC Office of Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards.
In both the LEID calculation and the limit of error calculation on an individual receipt, the licensee does not propagate the random and systematic errors separately for the Sauter 8000 balance.
This yields an understated calculated limit of error.
The licensee agreed to correct this oversight.
5 3.
ID and its Associated ID The ID and the LEID calculations were reviewed for the last three material balance periods covering February 22, 1978 - August 30, 1978. The review included the SNM inventory reports and the method of calculating the LEID for these periods.
For each period, the ID and LEID were within limits specified in 10 CFR Part 70.
4.
Exit Interview The inspector met with licensee representatives (denoted in Para-graph 1) at the conclusion of the inspection on October 20, 1978.
The scope of the inspection was described and the findings were presented.
.