ML19327A914

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Fifth Partial Response to FOIA Request.App I Records Encl & Available in Pdr.Portions of App I Records Withheld (Ref FOIA Exemption 4)
ML19327A914
Person / Time
Site: 07001113
Issue date: 10/16/1989
From: Grimsley D
NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM)
To: Bauman L
GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT
Shared Package
ML19327A915 List:
References
FOIA-87-88, RTR-NUREG-BR-0006, RTR-NUREG-BR-6 NUDOCS 8910200025
Download: ML19327A914 (3)
v • d • e


Text

_

[_

u.S. wucum utuoR,co.. SS o.

.Qus..u _

FOlA - F)- @ 7

( l ;'

f f

es.

R($PONSETYPE L

g RESPON9E FREEDOM OF

~

Im^t b9amat W rAJ g

)J OlTT IT 1989

  • ^ "

INFORMATION ACT (FOIA) REQUEST eaee DOCKE1 NuMe(R($)(N #ppheeser)

REOut$f L R

's l

PART l - AGENCY RECORDS RELEASED OR NOT LOCATED ISee checAed t> oars)

No agency records subpct to the isquest have been located.

No addrtional age,ncy records oubpet to the request have teen locates.

1 Regireted recor6s are evenable through another pubhc distribution program. See Comments Section.

Agency records subsect to the request that are 6dentifed on Apper.dialesl are already available for pubhc inspection and copymg in the NRC PutAc Document Room 2t20 L Street. N W., WasNngton, DC 20555.

1 are bemg made available for pubhc inspection and copying in the Agency records subsect to the request that are identified on Appendix (esi-NRC Pubhc Document Room, 2120 L Street, N.W,, WasNngton, DC, h a folder under this FOIA number and requester name.

The nonproprietary version of the proposaHs) ther you agreed to eccept in a telephone conversation with a member of my staff 6s now being made avoitable for pubhc inspection and copying et the NRC Pubhc Document Room 2120 L Street. N W., WasNngton, DC. in a folder undes this FOIA number and requester name.

Agency records outsect to the request that are identified on Appendiatest may be inspected and coped et the NRC Local Pubhc Document Room identified in the Comments Section.

Enclosed to information on how you may obtain access to end the charges for copying records placed in the NRC Pubhc Document Room, 2120 L Street, N W.i Weehington, DC.

Agency records subrect to the request are enclosed.

Records sutiect to the request have been refoned to another Federal agency (ees) for review and direct response to you.

You will be baled by the NRC for fees totalmg $

in view of NRC's response to tNs request. no further action sa being taken on appealletter dated No.

PART 11. A-INFORMATION WITHHELD FROM PUBUC DISCtOSURE Certain informaten in the requested socords is bemg withheld from pubhc disclosure pursuant to the enemptions described rn and for the reasons stated m Part II, sections 8. C. and D. Any released poitions of the documents for which only part of the record is being withhelo are being made available for pubhc mopecton and copying an the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street. N W., Wa:Nngton, DC.m a folder under this FOI A number and requester name.

d COMMENTS 8910200025 891016 PDR FOIA BAUMANB7-BB PDR

.A Si RE, DIRECTOR, OlV I OF FR M OF INFORMATION AND PUBLICATIONS SERVICES h

F?iA - $ @ k k DArc.00T 161989 FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT RESPONSE foiA NU MotRi$r

?-

PART k.t-APPtlCAttE EXEMPTIONS Recor') sutdoct 13 the request that are described on tb coci;sid Appendixts)

_?re being withheld in th;it cntir ty or in part undet the I

' (nomptions and for the reasons set forth bolew pursuant to 6 U S.C. bb21b1 and 10 CF R 9.17(a) of NRC Regu'ations.

O' 1, the withheld information is precorty classifed pursuant to Enocutive Order (EXtMPTION 11

2. The w6thheld informaten relates soloty to the intomal personnel rules and procedures of NRC, (EXEMPilON 21 3 The witiheid information es specif. tatty esempted from pubhc disclosure by statute indicated. ([K[MPilON 3)

L L

5,ctens 141 146 of the Atomic Energy Act which prohibits the disclosure of Restncted Data or Formerly Restricted Data 142 U S C. 21612165L Section 147 of the Atomic Energy Act which prohituts the disclosure of Unclassified Safeguards Information (42 U S.C. 21671-

,[

4. The withheld informateon is a trade secret or commercial of fmancial informetson that 6s bemg withheld for the reasontel and.ceted (EXIMPTION di N

The mformaten is considered to be confidentist busmess (proprietary) informaten.

1 The informaten is conside.ed to be proprietary information pursuam to 10 CFR 2.790dditti.

The enformat.on was submitted and received in confidence pursuant to 10 CFR 2 790tdH2L

6. The wethheld informaten corwists of enteragency or intraegency records that are not available through c scovery dunt g htegaten, ([XEMPitON 66 Appkcable Prtvliege:

e Dehberative Ptocess: Disclosure of predecessor al information would tend to inhibe the open and frank enchange of ideas essential to the dehberative process Where records are withheld m their entirety, the f acts are inentricably intartwened with the predecismnalinformarvn. There also are no reasonably segregable factual M

portions because the release of the facts would permit an indeoct inquiry into the predecisonal process of the agency.

Attorney wortproduct pnvilege IDocuments prepared oy an attorney in contemplation of htigation I A torney ~chent privilege (Confidential commun.catens between an anorney and his her clieni l

6. The withheld 6nformation is enempted from pubhc disclosure because its disclosure would resuft 6n a cleady unwonented invasen of personal pervacy. (ExtMPTION 61 7 The withheld information consists of records compiled for law enforcement purposes and 6s being withheld for the reason (s) indicated. (EXEMPTION 7) 3 Disclosure could reasonably be espected to mterfere with an enforcement proceedmg because et could reveal the scope, duection. and focus of on-forcement efforts, erwl thus could possibly allow them to teke acten to shield potential wrongdoing or a violatio.i of NRC requuemor ta from mvestigators W

EXtMPf 60N 7 IAH W

Disclosure would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personi privacy (EXEMPTION 7tCD l

The mformabon consists of names of mdividuals and other information the disclosure of which could reasonably be espected to arealidentities of confidential sources 1(X(MPTION 7 (Dil OTHLA PART II. C-DENYING OFFICIALS Pursuant to 10 CFR 3 26tbl ano'or 9 26 (c) of the U S Nuclear Regulatory Commiss.on regulations. it has been determined that the mformaten withheld is caempt from production or disclosure, ar'd that its production or disclosure is contearv to the pubhc mierest The persons responsible for the denial are those officials identif ed below as denying officials and the Detector. Division of Freedom of informat.on and Pubhcations Services Office of Administration and Resources Manags.rient, for any derCis that may be appeated to the t aecutsve Director for Operalions 11001 DENYit4G OFFICIAL TiTLErOFFICE RECORDS DENTED APPfLLATE OFFICIAL f

SECRE T ARY 190

_ _ 7

_.irI-s_

PART H. D-APPilAL RIGHTS The denial by each denying officialidentified in Part ll.C may be oppealed to the Appellate Official identified m that section. Any such appeal must be in writmg and must be made withen 30 days of receipt of thes response. Appeals must be addressed as appropriate to the Executive Duector for Operations or to the Secretary of the Cornmissen.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washmgton. DC 20555, and should clearty state on the envelope and in the letter that it is an " Appeal from an initial FOIA Decision /

CHC F!RM 464 (Part 21 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION tt t 88)-

FOIA RESPONSE CONTINUATION

E E

r01A-37-38 (5.hPartial)

APPENDlX 1 n

PORT 10lls DELETED 1.-

5/9/84-Letter to J. A. Long from J. Philip Stohr, wfenclosures.

re:

Report No. 70-113/84-05.

(6 pages) - Exemption 4 2.-

5/9/84 Letter to J. A. Long from J. Philip Stohr, w/ enclosures, re: Report No. 70-1113/84-06.

(10 pages). Exemption 4 3.-

5/16/84 Memorandum to Charles N. Smith from Edward J. McAlpine, re:

Recomendation Resulting from Region II, inspection Report Nos.

70-1113/83-28 and No. 70-1113/84-06 at General Electric (01184-06-04).

(2 pages) _ Exe ption 4 4.

6/18/84~

Letter to J. A. Long from J. Philip Stohr, wlenclosures, re:

Report No. 70-1113/84-06. (6 pages). Exemption 4 1

l a

i

x n

o 1

xOVEP.NMENT ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT

~ 1555 Connecticut Awnue, N.W., Suite 202 (202)202 8550-

-Washington, D.C; 20036 -

GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT MIDWEST OFFICE 3424 MARCOS LANE APPLETON, WISCONSIN 54911

~

Deember 28, 1986 FREEDOM OF INFORMATION'ACT REQUEST fAEEDOM OF INFORM @oM Director ACT REQUEST h Zg-gQ fg Office of Administration U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Ih j./0 -# 7

. Washington D.C.

20210 TO Wi!OMMIT MAY-CONCERN:

Pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C.

552,
the Government Accountability Project (GAP) requests copies of any and all agency records and information, including but not limited to notes, letters, memoranda, drafts, minutes, diaries, logs, calanders, tapes,.

transcripts, summaries, interview' reports, procedures, instructions, engineering analyses, drawings, files, graphs; chartr, maps, photographs,.

agreements, handwritten notes, studies, data sheets, notebooks, books,

. telephone me'ssages, computations, voice recordings, t emputer. runof f s,.

any other data compilations, interim and/or final reports, status reports, and any-and;all other records relevant to and/or generated in connection with'the listed inspections of General Electric Company's, Wilmington,-

N.C.

facility.

70-1113/82-18 70-1113/84-04 70-1113/84-05 70-1113/84-06 70-1113/84-13 This request includes all agency records as defined in 10 C.F.R. 9.3a (b) and the NRC Manual, Appendix 0211, Parts 1.A.2 and A.3 (approved L

October 8, 1980) whether they currently exist in the NRC " official, l

working", investigative or other files, or at any other location, including rrivate residences.

If any records, as defined in 10 C.F.R. 9.3a(b), and the NRC Manual, supra and covered by this request have been destroyed and/or removed after this request, please provide all surrounding records, including but not limited to a' list of all records which have been or are destroyed and/or removed, a. description of-the action (s) taken relevant to, generated in

' connection with, and/or issued in order to implement the action (s).

g.,

7

e.

e GAP requests that fees be waived, because

" finding the information can be considered as primarily benefiting the general public," 5 U.S.C.

522 (a) (4) (a).

GAP is a non profit, non partisan public interest organization concerned with honest and open government.

-Through public outreach, the Project promotes whistleblowers as agents of government accountability.

Through it Enviromental Whistleblower Clinic, GAP offers assistance to local public interest and citizens groups and intervenors in the concern for safety at nuclear power plants.

We are requesting this information as part of an ongoing monitoring project of the NRC's efforts to protect public health and safety at and near nuclear processing plants and radioactive waste facilities.

For any documents or portions that you deny due to a specific FOIA exemption, please provide an index itemizing and describing the Socuments or portions of documents withheld.

The index should provide a Setailed justification of your grounds for claiming each exemption, explaining why each exemtion is relevant to the document or portion of tha document withheld.

This index is required under vaughn v.

Rosen (I), 484 F2d 820 (D.C. Cir. 197.3), cert, denied, 415 U.S.

977' (1974).

'fe look forward to your response to this request within ten (10)

-uorking days.

Sincerely, n

p /M/

NAT?

Linda Bauman FOIA Coordinator Midwest Office Responses to this request should be mai.'ed to :

Government Accountability Project Midwest Office 3424 Marcos Lane Appleton, Wisconsin 54911 A

1, D._..

f G.

I 4: *.

u.

y..

.Y;, d V

+

.....' [ Q g (twna t

MR(

9 W.

s General. Electric Company 1

ATTN: Mr. J. A. Long, General Manager Wilmington Manufacturing Department P. O. Box 780 Wilmington, NC 28402 Gentlemen:-

9, SLfBJECT: REPORT NO. 70-1113/84-06 On April 2-6, 1984, - NRC inspected activities authorized by NRC License No. SNM-1097 for your General Electric Company. Wilmington Manufacturing Depart-ment. At the conclusion of the inspection, the findings were discussed with those members of your staff identified in the enclosed inspection report.

Areas examined during the inspection are identified in the report. Within these l

areas, the inspection consisted of selective examinations of-procedures and

' representative records, interviews with personnel, and observation of activities in progress.

The inspection findings indicate that certain activities violated NRC requir's-ments.- The violations, references to pertinent requirements, and elements to be included in.your response are pres &nted in the enclosed Notice of Violation.

Violation 2 described in the enclosed Notice of Violation is similar to. a violation contained in a Notice of Violation sent to you with our letter dated August 16, 1983. Since "similar violations" as. described in the NRC Enforcement Policy are of significant concern to the NRC, in your response, please give particular attention to the identification and remedy of the root cause of the l

violation so that its recurrence may be precluded.

L In-accordance with 10 CFR 2.790(d) and 10 CFR 7.

safeguards activities and

.. security measures are exempt from public disclot v

.herefore, the enclosures to this - letter, with the exception of the. rep.

ser page which presents a nonexempt summary, will no.t be placed in NRC ic Document Room.

l l

The responses directed by this letter and t-<

osures are not subject to the l

clearance procedures of.the Of fice of Mana......u and Budget issued under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980. DL 96-511.

Should you have any questions concerning this letter, please contact us.

't Sincerely, If J. philip Stohr, Director N'T eu pg Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards Information in this record was de

Enclosures:

(See Page 2) ordance rllh t Freedo n ofInfor 8910200028 891016

.u..t.. -... m e w:RrMTH

["g [h PDR FDIA CCM~" # *** #"#

I' PDR

~BAUMAN87-88

~,

... : r..

i ll '

. 4 hEMrh MAY " 9 ]$

General' Electric Company

Enclosures:

1.

Notice of Violation

-. (Exempt from Disclosure) r 2.

Inspection Report No. 70-1113/84-06 (Exempt from 01sclosure)-

cc.w/encis:-

C. M.' Vaughan, Manager;

-Licensing and Nuclear Materials Management. Unit bec w/encis:

Document Control Desk Safeguards + and Materials Program Branch, EW-359 Fuel Facility Safeguards Licensing Branch, 881-SS bec w/ Inspection Summary:

State'of North Carolina f

bec w/o enc 1:-

License Fee Management Branch i

l

'l

~!

l L

RII RII RII RII R

BRic/R.'

b:4[il[e

$Y1

'fh l

S hards:dr Ji4D EMcAlpine K Warr JPStohr

{/7/84 qi/[/84 5/7/84 J/9 /84 J/ /84 vat *i At ilAN1Mit'!O -f trMTH CONTAJN3 2J90 INICRMATCN lb 1

t

s.

~ ~ <.

-a

.a..

,n.a

.aa n

n

..a.w.

-a-2

+-

a.

+.

w -

31

,; g W, g 8

of

-- PbCso

Copge, y).g3 yc';te::t g T'Picduced of th'" W be alet;g,yy e f f f,,

ENCLOSURE 1 NOTICE OF VIOLAT. ION i

-Gent:ral Electric Company Docket No. 70-1113 Wimlington Manufacturing Department License No'. SNM-1097 The following violations were identified during an inspection conducted on April.2-6, 1984.

The Severity levels were assigned in accordance with the NRC Enforcement Policy (10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C).

1.

License Condition 2.1 of Safeguards Amendment No, MPP-3 to Special Nuclear Materials License No. $NM-1097 requires the licensee to follow the current

. revision of his Fundament Nuclear Material Control Plan.

Section 8.2.3.1 of that plan recuires Contrary to the above, significant shipper-receiver differences (for both

-the individual cylinders and the shipment totals hipment of uranfum -

I

_ hexafluoride receised December 6,1983, not i

This is a Severity Level V violation (Supplement III),

2.

License Condition 2.1 of Safeguards Amendment No, MPP-3 to Special Nuclear Materials License No. SNM-1097 requires the licensee to foi e current revision of his Fundamental Nuclear Material Control Plan.

The published instructions, NUREG/BR-0006, require tne licensee to en limits of error (95% cor.ficence interval) on 00E/NRC-741 foms.

Contrary to the above, the licensee failed to correctly calculate limits of

]

error which were entered on 00E/NRC-741 form ZQM-YLJ 273 for a shipment of 1

uranyl nitrate solution received February 20, 1984. The licensee applied incorrect parameters to the limit of error calculations which resulted in i

limits of error being reported that were not detemined at the 95%

confidence level.

A similar violation was disclosed during an inspection conducted July 25-29, 1983, and reported in Inspection Report No. 70-1113/83-21. The licensee's corrective actions for this violation were not adequately implemented to prevent recurrence. This is a repeat violation.

1; 8910200030 891016 PDR FOIA BAUMANB7-BO PDR

,-t',

~

2 Docket No. 70-1113 General Electric Company.

Wimlington Manufacturing Department License No. $NM-1097 3.

10.CFR 70.58(g)(1) requires.the licensee to follow procedures for assuring.

accurate identification and seasurements of the quantities, of special nuclear material received.

i Contra to the abov t

icensee failed t ollow procedure No which recuires

~

for a shipment of uranyl nitrate

~'

received February 20.1 This is a Severity Level V Violation (Supplement III).

Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.201, you are required to submit to-this of fice within 30 days of the date of this Notice, a written statement or explanation in. reply, including: (1) admission or denial of the alleged violations; (2) the reasons for the violations if admitted; (3) the corrective steps which have been taken-and the results achieved; (4) corrective ' steps which will be taken to avoid further violations; and (5) the date when full compliance will be achieved.

Security or safeguards irformation should be submitted as an enclosure to facilitate withholding it from public disclosure as required by 10 CFR 2.790(d) or 10 CFR 73.21, blY " 91984

-Date:

l -.

l l

\\

l

?

m

.-..--.7....

. godt ft ANSMrfTyp q nog UNIT D A&M NUCLEAR RESULATORY CoomuSSION REoloN 11 y

3 101 M ARIETTA STRE ET.NJU.

ATLANTA.oEonotA 30303 Q "9\\

Report No.: 70-1113/84-06 Docket No.: 70-1113

-License No.:

SNM-1097 Safeguards Group No III Licensee: General Electric Company P. O. Box 780 Wilmington, NC 28402 Inspection Conducted: April 2-6, 1984 Inspector: 6. f. EL4 s/7/74 B. L. Richards, Statistician-Date Signed Approved by:

MC $4cwNo N8/2V l

E. J. McA41ne, Chief,TMaterial Control and Date Signed i

Accountability Section, Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards Branch Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards Inspection Summary Areas Inspected:

Followup on Items of Noncompliance and Previous Inspection Findings.

The inspection involved 31 inspector hours on site by one NRC inspector and was begun during the regular hours.

l 1

Results: The licensee was found to be in compliance with NRC requirements in the areas examined during-the inspection except for the following items:

j.

l 1.

Failure to notify appropriate licensee r.anagement when significant shipper-lL j receiver differences occured.

2.

Failure to correctly calculate limits of error associated with a receipt of j'

. uranyl nitrate solution.

t 3.

Failure to complete sample request form in accordance with written procedure which resulted in improper analysis of a receipt of uranyl nitrate solution.

8910200033 891016 PDR FOIA BAUt1AN87-88 PDR VA f!9'at 'w.

  • **:0 Mit?,W CCNTAINS 1.1% McIlNA h

m-.,

-.~

-... -.c..

o m

5' t

/

4 s

'4.-

ExitIntervth 1

The inspection scope and findings were summarjzed on April 6,1984,: with U

- those persons indicated in paragraph 1 abse.

,}'

Y h

l-i I-I 4

aw

-s c

e.

.<-v

...w-r v

-,-2,-

.wy w.--

_,,i--..,,.

,e.-

3

....-...--.w..

.m w,

m mm-m s

s,

,c..

L' REPORT DETAILS Report No. 70-113/84-06 1.

Key Persons Contacted R. L.. Bruce, Analyst, Licensing and Nuclear Materials Management

  • J. L. Harmon, Manager, Manufacturing Technology and Engineering Operations W. B. Haverty, Analyst, Licensing and Nuclear Materials Management
  • W. J. Hendry, Manager, Regulatory Compliance
  • G. R. Mallett, Senior Engineer, Measurements and-Statistics
  • R. M. Mcivor, Acting Manager, Planning and Projects
  • R. C. Pace Acting Manager, Fuel Chemical Operations
  • R. I. Parnell, Engineer, Chemet Laboratory L
  • H. Stern, Acting Manager, Manufacturing Technology anc Engineering l

Operations aC. M. Vaughan, Manager, Licensing and Nuclear Materials Management

  • J. R. Watkins, Acting Manager, Powder Production "T. P. Winslow, Manager, Chemet Laboratory "P. E. Younghar2, Manager, Materials Operations l

" Denotes those present at the exit interview 2.

MC 927018 Followup on Previous Inspection Findings (0 pen) 83-17-03 (Inspector Folicwup Item) Resolution of shipper-receiver--

differences caused by discrepancies in gross heel weights.

Ouring the inspection conducted June 13-17, I reference NRC inspection l-report 70-1113/83-17), it was determined that l

Upon receiving uranium

' hexa uor e cy inders com t e gaseous usio

' ants, the licensee empties the cylinders except for some residual material in the bottom of the cylinder referred to as a heel. The licensee ships the cylinders containing the heels back to the gaseous diffusion plants with a reasured gross heel weight, determined prior to shipment. The gaseous dif fusion plants, upon receipt of the heels, gross weighs each of the cylinders containing the heels. The gross heel weight, as deter d by the aseous diffusion plant, was found in a number of es to b

~

In addit on to noted in the ss heel weight, - it has n determined t for some linders the These types of discrepancies cause significant SR0s which the gaseous fusion plants do not reconcile.

a O,]

f 4

.., - J

_NaNEN N Thus, when the gaseous diffusion plants refill the cylin ers' with uranium

~

hexafluoride> to sh back to the licensee, these weigh he icensee performed a study compa ing the tare r

weights assoc ated t ipty uranium.hexafluoride cylinders determined by the licensee and the gaseous diffusion plants. The-licensee presented their findings: to the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards (NRC Headquarters) in a letter dated January 5,1984. Included in.the letter was an evaluation of the resulting data and comments on the licensee's review of the gaseous diffusion p' ants' procedures. Among the observations' that the licensee presented was the gaseous diffusion plant's apparent use of steel standards (as opposed to the licensee's use of artifact standards), which caused tare weights to be understated. The NRC is currently reviewing the licensee's study and will direct further corrective actions. 'Therefore, this item rwains open.

3.

MC~927028 Followup on' Itema of Noncompliance a.

(0 pen) 83-17-01 (Violation) Failure to investigate and reconcile-significant shipper-receiver differences, t-g Ouring an inspeccion conductec June 13-17,1983 (reference NRC Inspec-tion Report 70-113/83-17), it was determined that the licensee faiTed to properly investigate and reconcile significant shipper-receiver differences (SR0s). Among the corrective actions to which the licensee l

committed was a modification of the applicable procedure to assure compliance with the appropriate requirements, and an internal memoran-due to appropriate staf f members which addressed the deficiencies H

referenced in the Notice of Violation. These modifications were I

reviewed and appeared to be adequate with regard to correcting the deficiencies referenced in the Notice of Violation.

During this p

inspection.an in-depth review of current NRC-741 forms was performed l

to determine whether the licensee waL}nvestigating and reconcilino i

, significant SR0s.

In most instances) t l'

This concern was addressed in paragraph 2 above.

While examing the licensee's program for evaluating S ads with regard new I l-

,to the existing violation, ah {$ectiod r w I \\ It further states that if thd 1 . __....,j Procedure 109 l (" Nuclear Material Receipts", revision 10) implements this requirement. fo$[e'.NoN t N i -w-- -,w--, --y ..re. .-...s-- ---,-.m. .,--.__.m--_ ,.---.--_-,_m--.

-~- ~- l =. .c. i n. M 3 _ Section 5.2.13.2 of 'the procedure s es tha The in ctor, determined, owever, that.signi cant SRDs that. occu on a-shipment of uranius hexafluoride received December 6,1983 from Goodyear Atomic were not et Manager, L&N!W. This is a violation (84-06-01), occured in this receipt for both the total shipment for indivi i cylinders. The reason for the violation appeared to be failure to follow procedure. Although this concern is similar to the concerns associated with the violation issued during the June 13-17, 1983, inspection, the causes are different. Therefore, this violation is not a repeat violation, but rather an additional-violation in the area of SRD evaluations. The violation issued during the June 13-17, 1983, inspection will remain open pending licensee's corrective actions to adequately investigate and reconcile SRDs.- b. (Closed) 83-17-02 (Violation) Failure to reweigh cylinders of uranium hexafluoride receipts in accordance with written procedure when gross weight discrepancies occur. During the inspection conducted June 13-17, 1983, the Itcensee's methods for receiving uranium hexafluoride cylinders were examined. it was determined that the licensee had failed to reweigh Individual cylinders when gross weight discrepancies occurred between the licensee and the shipper for several receipts, as required by an internal procedure -(Procedure 109, "N ar Material Receipts). The licensee's corrective actions included A review of current receipts of urani'm nexa uoride showed tna he licensee was reweighing cylinders and taking appropriate actions when gross weight discrepancies occurred. This item is closed. 3 (0 pen) 83-21-01 (Violation) Failure to correctly. calculate limits of c. error associated with receipts of uranyl nitrate solution. During an inspection condected July 25-29,1983 (reference NRC Inspec-tion Report 70-1113/83-21), the licensee's methods for calculating liinits of error associated with receipts of uranyl nitrate solution were examined. It was determined that the licensee had incorrectly calcula mits of error for a number of receipts. The licersee had n their response to the violation, the licensee stated that proce ure 109 " Nuclear Material Rece " would be modified to include an instruc-tional requirement fo This g l wou,d assure that the parameters ng use were cons'istent h the actual weighing, sampling, and analytical methods applied to each receipt. The licensee committed to be in full compliance by November 1, 1983.

7 = .i. ....~J 4 j 1 The licensee has-received two shipments of uranyl nitrate solution since November 1,1983. The limit of error reported on NRC-741 forn ZQM-YLJ 273 (received February 20,1984) was examined and found to be incorrectly calculated. The ur concentration which was applied to the batch was det from s. The licensee incorrectly appited a factor o -to the random analytical l (uranium) error compon t used.in cale ing the limit of error. The licensee made a similar mistake in determining the limit of error for grams U-235. nc ect parameter caused the limits of e t e a l understated by for the limit of error (uranium) and for the limit o error U-235). The licensee's failure to rectly calculate Itaits of error associated with uranyl nitrate receipts is a violation (S4-06-02). This. Is a repeat of the violation issued during _ the July 25-29, 1983, inspection. cussions with licensee staff members and management i cated that lconcerning i original vio ion detected durin the Ju 25-2, 1 nspec- [ tion._ There fore, jof.the procedural modif ion which attempted to prevent recurrence of this i violation. t A contributing factor in the licensee's use of incorrect parameters is noted as follows. Procedure 2.1.1.18 (Prod 10.96) entitled "UNH ~ Transfer'. revision e specifying samples per shipment _anc (uranium concentration and enrichment) on each 5 for receipts o uranyl nitrate. It was disclosed that - for the shipment of uranyl nitrate ceived Feorva 0, 1984, the L sample request form did not specify as ed by l the procedure. Therefore, each samp e was only analyzed The licensee's failure to complete the sample request form in accordance with the written procedure is a violation (84-06-03). The ' ncmber of ses u _ to determine the uranium concentration this case was samples obtained and each analyzed as discussed e ously. 'icensee had followed the saap e req oced l nalyses pamples obtained and each analyzed have been a ied for-this receipt. Because of licensee s departure from the routine sampling and analytical technique, the limits of error were incorrectly calculated as noted previously. The licensee's modification to procedure 109 was not adequately imple-mented, as it did not prevent recurrence of t.he repeat violation. - It is apparent that the two violations issued during the current inspec-tion relating to uranyl nitrate receipts were caused by weaknesses in two dif ferent areas, and that their occurrences resulted from disparate I causes. The violation issued during the July 25-29, 1983, inspection will rmr.ain open, pending the licensee's corrective actions. l I< w an

s,---~

-e,-e .u-----a--,--.w.-m------.-------------------------,.----------w--.---x

.aw-e-

--w ---ee

' ryy'.e w my- -- e ,g. [ % f I' ' NucteAR nt0VLATORY Colmissl0N g.pg_f[,,, 3 g g. .T Cc;:y*y/ 'rs ',,,,,,! s.. RecioN el y ,.. <, - ~ -***8 d 101 MARIETTA STAEET.NA ATLANTA.GEoROIA 30308 --Thir !;9t:.r

  • t.t r. r.at u to MAY i 6 UN

..d<~ retreca c.* < e.m egenso [f ,r d "t.. g>),g arprevel En:II ? ?.* .W o% M % u wig W n. m +ls Control Licensing Section, m es N.' Smith Nuclear Materia V eUM Facilit iafeguards Licensing Branch e

e i

Qards,10ffice of.Jiuclear Mat 6 rial Safety and . f @ f.9 % W,;r_Q V Q. \\ J3 Alpine.. Chief,' Mater 1af Co;ntrol and Accountability L .~ c (. , on,1fuclear Mate'rtals Safdty anf $afeguards Branch' ' i. .%C.. f..syon'ofRadiationSafetyandSafeguards j' 70 '1113/83-28 AND NO. 70-1113/84-06 RECOMMENDATION RE INSPECTION REPORT NOS. N ~ $UBJECT: AfdENERALELECTRIC(0!L 9 9l' -, q u... d M.,84-06-04) Based on inspection findings, the following policy issue needs resolution. y i

,y

.ss,*ystj. y ep - G g[7$ ), 'l ' I-N.' [ ' l'fr.' fi. i k g f hys.. g$[/ .. jg K.. ; y rf f. _ y-f. .,g.pf.1 }j,, g ~ fM,lTd6%$$% Y [ ((C . / N' N' gbydNy[f J',% ' ' ' ~Q f i lh f;f.% ' lll_. N l\\ ?? ? W ll I E,dd hh 3f'. . k '.( E. k ; ft.Y8h [ d[ W . fp i

4. j, yQ. L, [ j

,.O f'

  1. b.; ' e 4 i
  • L

.8910200038 891016 4 n .t 4 'S@ JP . W 'a L PDR-FOIA n 3 ..?.,. g BAUMAN87-BB PDR. The licensee's curren ctice also M ars t be inconsiste ith the FHMC t.fg The eview criteria rei to sectio 4 The lic see does n s see on further tes p follow this practice. r1RFTiiicyte ' Vy/" dn 6' y L_v M ro m * ~, charc \\ - 4 *

  • [- ' i blD -

gv,gngormation. this record was deleief~ 'QJ MW%.d 4.-_ ' 2-5574 u ** %of in in accordance with hp freedom of information ,g _Q 4,J.,_ s Act exemptions,,'f-i .v s 'e . cL h.%., J.fW pp, K.gg j 5 < - w. r% W-O tg. - . _ __ a n. I- - es.rwnmenOM r._ & l t +

<s N. Smith 2 MAY 161984 m-%,_ .I l i We request. that you review this issue from a policy standpoint and tell us whether the licensee's current practices are appropriate. Edward J. McAlpine cc:. L. Cobb, IE:HQ l l' ~ l L i

UNITE atseg ji je JCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ' "' ; if Geol!N It r g l 101 M A3tETT A STREET.Nf3. ATLANTA. otoRol A 30303 x.....j mm ,9 ,p General Electric Company p r ATTN: Mr. J.-A. Long, General Manager Wilmington Manufacturing Department L, P. O. Box 780 - l' Wilmington, NC-28402 (A Gent 1emen: k) h, h 6 h. - Om

SUBJECT:

REPORT NO. 70-05 & of t'.., 84, NRC inspected activities authorized by NRC Li(cen On March 26-29, -SNM-1097 for your Wi1=ington Manuf acturing Department'. At the conclusion of the inspection, the. findings were discussed with those members of your staff identified in the enclosed inspection report. Areas examined during the inspection are identified in the report. Within these areas, the inspectice consisted of selective examinations of procedures and representative reco cs, interviews with personnel, and observation of activities in progress. Within the scope of the. inspection, no violations or deviations were identified. In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790(d) and 10 CFR 73.21, safeguards activities and security measures are exempt from public disclosure; therefore, the enclosures to - this - letter, with the exception of the report cover page which presents a .g. nonexempt summary, will n_ot be placed in NRC's Public Document Room. \\ Should you have any Questions concerning this letter, please contact us. Sincerely, l .f I& J. P ilip Stohr, Director Division of Emergency Preparedness and Materials Safety Programs

Enclosure:

Inspection Report No. 70-1113/84-05 (Exempt from Disclosure) cc w/ encl: l C. M. Vaughan, Manager l Licensing and Nuclear Materials Management Unit Ir:f0 tqation in this record was deleted in tccad:nce vith,th fn.cJom of information 7 ist, execy:lans 4 Y3 % Q.4 1.( [ _._ _ ~ I-/ (kb

.w-

  • g"

..dCLEAR REGULATORY COMMi&SION ~ ' ' REoloN il b 101 M ARitTTA sTRE ET.N.W. ATLA.NTA.otoRotA 303o3 %e...* $~ O N Report No. 70-1113/84-05 Docket No. 70-1113 License No. SNM-1097 Safeguards Group No III Licensee: General Electric Company Wilmington, NC 28401 Date of.Inspecti

March 26-29, 1984 t

Type of Inspect on: Special Unannounced Material Control and Accountability Inspectors-[i~ s/ //d (/ 8 y [gdd,QMrds Auditor Dite Signed ~ _AA 5 <S Y ._J. W. Ba te s, IaTe gi.a rc s Chemi s t Oa'te S'igned Approved by: b M d' 5/9 b Y E, J. McAlpine, Chief,\\ Material Control and Date Signed Accountability Section, Safeguards Branch Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards inspection Summary i Areas Inspected: Measurements and Internal Controls 1 The inspection involved 54 inspector hours on site by two NRC inspectors and was - begunduringltheregularhours. Results: The licensee was found to be in compliance with NRC requirements in the-two areas examined during the inspection, i t 8910200051 991016 FDIA PDR PDR BAUMAN87-6B E 't .. ~.

L ' 2_ _ EY. 6(pq C0p7,W _ ca t j ' copg,g; T__. P W n ' D : : h " " ' t.~,.,, e g, ret-c he: L:w:.w. cy,c:g1 a;;r: val et ::::n REPORT DETAILS Report No.. 70-1113/84-05 1. Key Persons Contacted W. J.' Hendry, Manager, Regulatory Compliance

  • C.- M. Vaughan, Manager, Licensing and SNM
  • R. H. D. Foleck : Licensing Specialist R. I. Parnell, Supervisor, Chemical Laboratory T. P. Winslow, Manager, Chemical Laboratory R. C. Church, Manager, Manuf acturing System Operations The inspectors also interviewed several other licensee employees.

" Denotes those present at the exit interview 2. Review of Concerns Regarding Measuremerts and Internal. Controls During the initial meeting with licensee management to discuss the scope,of the review relative to the receipt by NRC of allegations pertaining to the GE facility, the inspectors were aporised that GE management was also in receipt of certain alleged improprieties from one of their employees. Since. 4 the allegations received by NRC and the allegations received by GE were in similar areas, the inspectors incorporated the stated concerns from both sources into their review. a. MC 85206 Measurements It was asserted by a General Electric Wilmington Manufacturing Depart-ment employee, that on two dif ferent. occasions calibrations /verifica-tions were not performed on enrichment analyzers foilowing a detector change. Enrichment analyzers are used to determine the percent. uranium-235 in a wide variety of low enriched V02 powder and pellet samples in which the sample is converted to urano uranic oxide, chemically treated, and a portion of the sample transferred to a counting tube for analysis. The written procedure for this measurement entitled Isotopic V-Count Limit Change Crf teria No. C01411, Revision 3, dated February 9,1983,. cifies that at the beginning of a detector calibration, following a our burn-off, a calibration will be performed using st rds t span the range of operation followed by a verification o sample standards that also span the range of operation. If the oun rate remains.in specified limits the laboratory technician may then begin measuring a maximum of unknown production samples. Each

2 series o reduction samples must be followed by either remeasure-J' ment of. ibration or verification standards to obtain an aggregate o igh standard values that are used for the calculation of uranium c and the minimum uranium count limit. ~The concerned employee asserted that the measurement o calibration l< standards was not being performed according to proc r. It was determined that the understanding of the employee concernfnc the' 6 ,,1 v r. -is ws> iaT.er ceT. ermined t hrougti' si O;..;vu m vad w i, m vermcauon or countTng data records that combinations of calibrations and verifications were measured during the period when isotopic-L . analyses of production samples were performed. These measurements of calibration / verification standards were perforced a total of gtimes' as specified by the licensee's procedure. That production counting logs did not contain calibration data, indicated to the employee that calibrations had not been performed. This lack of data in the counting logs was evident only in instances where calibrations were-being. performed and production samples were not bein; analyzed. This-appears to have given the concerned worker the misconception that calibrations /. verifications were not being properly performed. Through inquiry of laboratory managers, it was determined that the subject calibration log book entries are categorized as working documents that are generated during productior. sample analyses as ~ a readily available summary of counting c'ata to be used in analyzing system stability and trouble shooting during periods when minimum uranium limits are exceeded. The log was not intended to reccrd all calibration and verification standards data as recorded by the printed Laboratory Measurement Control System (LMCS) tape. s It was determined through independent review of the calibration recording tape that during periods when the calibration log pages were blank, the Laboratory Measurement Control pregram was recording the calibration data as performed. N i b. MC 85210 Internal Control Computer Access Controls It was asserted by an employee of the General Electric Wilmington Manufacturing Department that data stored in the computer from isotopic analyses performed in the chemical laboratory are accessible and could be altered. Specifically, it was asserted that transaction codes assigned to laboratory supervisors that allow changes to analytical data associated with uranium samples were being used by laboratory technicians and that this practice was condoned by supervisors. Additionally, it was asserted that individual technician's password L Amenent .m .s ~......

l, g 3-7 g = l that allow transaction entry into the Laboratory Measurement Control System (LMCS) were being. used by fellow laboratory technicians to J create false data or to release data created by other technicians. 1 Through inquiry of laboratory management and selected laboratory technicians.together with a review of pay number, password, and transaction controls, the inspectors were able to determine the following: ( l') The-t Laboratory Measurement Control System (LMC 'incor o-rate These transaction codes are referred to.as LMCS.902/903' transact ons entitled " Update of the Sample _ and Test Records," the i instructions for which are dated August 4, 1983, - and July.14, 1983, respe tive The transaction codes identified ab the user to i Additionally, modific ions o re oduction-samples were restricted to use by only. It was acknowledged by laboratory management' that 902/ trans-

ctions were us by laboratory technicians in the

~ but that the authority to do so had een granted i to them through verbal delegation. This delegati n was normally granted during weekends, a time when would not normally be present in the laboratory, Interviews of several la atory onnel substantiated the use of verbal delegations L b egarding the use of 902/903 transactions. When a sed of t fact that the use of these transactions did not provide traceability for determining who actually corrected the l, data or why the changes were made, the licensee modified his operational procedures regarding restricted. access to these transaction codes. I In a laboratory policy memorandum dated January 19, 1984, the I licensee restated that the identified transaction codes could not L be used to change results of standards; re-emphasized to super-l: visors the need for restricting access to.the codes; indicated l that supervisors have been instructed to not divulge their. E passwords - for any reason; and specified that at anytime, a supervisor feels his password has become known to change it; and in the event of suspected password use, he/she shall investigate the condition immediately. This measure and its timely implementation was deemed by the inspectors to be appropriate and acceptable for improved adminis-trative controls over laboratory measurements. I

~. t + 1 (2) When use: of the ter was initiated in November i

1982,

. I 1 Since the samp e measurement-process usually spanned beyon single work shif t the individual who; actually released the sample results would not normally be: the-same individual who had actually prepared the sample or performed-the measurement. It is. . that a shift technician' who i ' S transacts data from the t CS could innocently allow- _ incorrect data to be transm' R Because of thi the i ndiscriminate u by technicians each ot he r '. s pas words wa e ary to p*omptly release sample measurement-data from the to LMCS. ~1icensee - modified his procedure for password control on Janua 1984, and modifiec the transmitting identifier within the mputer on January. 17, 1984. Thete referenced modift - 1 1 ren cict the issuance and changing of passwords- }._catons-ngle av indivicual. Also transactions between the'~ nd th The inspectors detected no evidence of intentiona creation f alse data within LMCS.. The modifications as implemented by the licensee were deemed by.tne inspector's to be an appropriate system trprovement to the administrative controls and appear to be consistent with the generally accepted (intent of the principles of computer surety. l The evaluation of the results of these modifications and related laboratory

systems, will de performed during subsequent inspections (84-05-01).

3. Exit Interview - The inspection scope and findings were summarized on March 29, 1984, with. those persons indicated in paragraph 1 above. war--en--?4 .9

  • w ww m-,,m, + -

+,,,,_,,.,_,_,,..m__m .vma=-m, u,-,e. ..,.es.m. age we,y-e,,,eweme

  • -weweaw' m
  • u.et w *W 9== -P ews t umw w-ve p q-p@c=gy ge. - W y ew $ ' v g-g w g-ww=tiswg--ty y my **

v 1 NdM [ i JUN i 819N General Electric Company ATTN: Mr. J. A. Long, General Manager i Wilmington Manufacturing Department e l P. O. Box 740 Wilmington, NC 28402 Gentlemen: SUILIECT: REPORT N0. 70-1113/84-06 Thank you for your response of June 7,1984, to our Notice of Violation issued on May 9,1984, concerning activities conducted at your Wilmington facility. We liave evaluated your responses and found that it meets the requirements of 10 CFR 2.201. We will examine the impismentation of your corrective actions during future inspections. l We appreciate your cooperation in this matter. Sincerely, 1, l r j J. Philip Stohr, Director Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards l cc: C. M. Vaughan Mauger i Licensing and Nuclear Materials Management Unit g M M[g bec: Document Control Desk l Safeguards and Maurial Program i Branch, EW-3fr9 l Fuel Facility Safeguards Licensing M Branch, 881-55 License Fee Management Branch State of North Carolina RII RII Rif RI' BM ardtigt fd I e ysuas<ine sqfa JPA<r sii ia< smiu e< s l W h C i: 8406 K Inform 3 tion in this record WH deleted in accordance witnge rieeeom or intermationI-ocx o7oos>>a 3 l M Tl" NTNW$ i t & ca c t i l

n,-- s

,).

I II. ISIS!O i SitMNGTON WNurAm UNG DLPMTWNT N E D D N k M NG -@%%% (919) 343-5,656 June 7, 1984 Mr. J. Philip Stohr, Director Division of Emergency Preparedness 5 Materials Safety Programs U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, RII Post Office Box 2203 j Atlanta, Georgia 30301 ) l Deer Mr. Stohr: i Referencest (1) NRC License SNM-1097, Docket 70-1113 (2) NRC Inspection Report 70-1113/84-06 l dated 5/9/84 i t Thank you very much for your letter reporting the results of the inspection conducted at our licensed fuel fabrication plant by 2 Mr. B. L. Richards of your office on April 2-6, 1984. Pertaining to the items of apparent noncompliance with NRC requirements in your letter, the replies to these items are given in the attachment to this letter. We appreciate your inspector's comments and suggestions related to our safeguards programs. These comments and suggestions are helpful to us in our constant efforts to maintain and, where l' necessary, improve these programs and to ensure the continuation of a successful safeguards effort at ow.* plant. We also welcome further discussio(s with your staff on the items in your letter and in our related replies, If necessary, for further clarification. Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.790(d), letter be withheldGeneral Electric Company requests that the attachment to this from public disclosure since this attachment identifies details of General Electric's control and accounting procedures for safeguarding licensed special nuclear material. very truly yours, I [ GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPA 89102000D3 891016 h. W hMA 88 PDR Charles M. Vaughan, Manager i e -~ Licensing & Nuclear Materials Management M/C J26 CMVicd SGD-I Attachment

1 ~.. ' .,\\. GENER AL & ELECTRIC Mr. J. Philip Stohr 1 June 7, 1984 ATTACHM ENT j The information given below refers to the items in Enclosure 1 - 1 Notice of Violation, in the NRC Inspection Report 70-1113/84-06, j dated $/9/04. r

1. License Condition 2.1 of Safeguards t

Amendment No. MPP-3 to Special Nuclear Materials License No. SNM-1097 requires the licensee to follow the current revision of I his P Nuc ate Plan. e 4 l Cont ry to the_above, significant shipper-I receiver dif ferences (for both the individual cylinders and the shipment totals) on a shipment of uranium hexaflue were n 4 is a Severity Level V violation i j (Supplement III). General Electric admits the violation as stated above. The specific shipper-receiver dif ferences (SRDs) report cited in this I violation represented situations that were similar to other SRDs that had been observed and the appropriate corrective actions were l Th as since reviewed this particular incident and det a t. SRDs were correctly handled and has signed-of f on the form. i

,,, c GENERAL $ ELECTRIC Mr. J. Philip stohr ~ June 7, 1984 Attachment - Page 2 i In order to prevent this type of situation from reoccurring, the ~ Manager, LENMM will instruct the responsible individuals, in e q rull compliance will be achieved for this item by June 30, 1984.

2. License Conditon 2.1 of Safeguards Amendment No. MPP-3 to Special Nuclear Materials 1,1 cense No. S11M-1097 requires the licensee to follow the current revision of his F ntal Nuclear Material control

~ Pla The published require the instructions, NUREG/B licensee to enter limits of error (954 e confidence interval) on DOE /NRC-741 forms. Contrary to the above, the licensee f ailed to correctly calculate limits of error which were entered on DOE /NRC-741 form SQM-YLJ 273 for a shipment of uranyl nitrate solution received February 20, 1984. The licensee applied incorrect i parameters to the limit of error calculations which resulted in limits of i error being reported that were not determined at the 954 confidence level. A similar violation was disclosed during an inspection conducted July 25-29,1983, and reported in Inspection Report No. 70-1113/ 83-21. The licensee's corrective actions for this violation were not adequately i 1 implemented to prevent recurrence. This is a repeat violation. e 7 ,,,.._..,-.,...,.m ,-.,,_,,,w_.--. .e,_.,mm.,.,, ,..., -,,,, - - -. ~.. _ -.

,'s.'

f ) GENER AL $ ELECTRIC I Mr. 3. Philip Stohr i June 7, 1984 Attachment - Page 3 I l General Electric admits the violation as stated above. The reason this violation occurred was that the analysts responsible for inputting the data did not follow the newly revised internal procedure. l 1 The responsible analysts ha arized themselves j with h edure. I t I General Electric is currently in compliance and no further action is planned. i It should be noted that the final LE which resulted from the I - calculation in question and in the prior cited example was a conservative value. Notwithstanding the significance of the deviation from the procedure, it is difficult in routine practice to err such that non-conservative LE values are generated by the failure mode observed in this instance. i

3. 10 CFR 70.58(g)(1) requires the licensee to

'j follow procedures for assuring accurate identification and measurements of the quantities of special nuclear material I received. j 4 Contrary to the above, licensee failed + l to follow proced No wh require request mpleted and d specify analysis on samples s- - tid taken from nyl rate receipts. The sample request fo as i rrectly /- T 4 j completed in tha analyses were not requested as ired a n' sa alt t each sample was only analyzed for a shipment of uranyl nitrate eive j i February 20, 1984. This is a Severity Level V Violation l (Supplement III). 1 a I m ,.._-,,__m ,ew,,,,,,,m_.,.we....,m,..e.-w-. ,w.n,,.w,,,,,,,,w.,,

f. e, GENER AL $ ELECTRIC t i Mr. J. Philip stohr June 7, 1984 i Attachment <- Page 4 General Electric admits the violation as stated above. The reason this violation occurred was due to an operator misin ing the instruction includ the D. The operator took amples but did not request nalysis. All operators who are c enti i ed with obtaining UNR samples and filling out ave been instructed by .l supervision as to the iTT"ent o th procedure and the appropriate method to be used. i Additionally, review of this PROD will be scheduled for inclusion in supervision to employee discussions (Roundtable Meetings) and this particular sampling method will be highlighted in WMD's sampling training program. rull compliance will be acheived by July 2, 1984. I t t i I i l i j f I l CMV/RBDF [ l /cd l I -}}

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML19327A914&oldid=4758012"