ML20045F257
| ML20045F257 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/29/1993 |
| From: | Matthew Mitchell, Shear G NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20045F250 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-QA-99990003-930629 99990003-93-12, NUDOCS 9307070143 | |
| Download: ML20045F257 (5) | |
Text
b U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION r
REGION III Report No. 99990003/93012(DRSS)
Docket No. 99990003 General. License (10 CFR 31.5)'
Licensee:
Evart Products Company 601 W. Seventh Street Evart, MI 49631-9468 Purpose of Inspection:
Review the events surrounding the loss of two polonium-210 static elimination devices.
Inspection Conducted: June 10 through 21, 1993 Inspection Conducted At:
Evart Products Evart, Michigan Inspectors:
>LL LE 3%,1993 Mark Mitch' ell Date Radiation Specialist Reviewed By:
k d
At L,21'/W3
' Ga'ry Sybar, Chief Date Nuclear Materials Inspection Section 2 Inspection Summary Inspection Conducted from June 10 throuah 21. 1993 (Report No. 99990003/93012(DRSS))
Areas Insoected:
This inspection was an unannounced, special safety inspection conducted to review the circumstances' surrounding the loss of.'two-polonium-210 static elimination devices. The inspection consisted of a selective examination of procedures, records and interviews with personnel..
Results: Within the scope of this inspection, one apparent. violation' was identified:
failure to properly transfer or dispose of a device containing byproduct matc"ial 10 CFR 31.5(c)(8).
(Section 4) 9307070143 930629 REO3 GA999 EMVEVART 99990003 PDR
W
~
l 6
[
q DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted
- Bob Campbell, Production Manager Tori Patterson, Acting Health and Safety Manager Roy Thompson, Supervisor Sue Epsey, Production Painter f
Murial Gibbs, Production Painter Ken Kraft, Production Painter l
Steve Wallin, Production Painter Rich Knapp, Production Painter Burl Gray, Supervisor Florence Roberts, Supervisor l
Jim Geil, Supervisor 6
Steve Metcalf, Supervisor
- Present at the Exit Meeting via telephone.
l 2.
Licensed Program i
Evart Products Company is a General Licensee (10 CFR 31.5) that uses l
leased, nominally 10 millicurie, polonium-210 static elimination
- )
devices. They have a current inventory of 16 units.used at various locations of the plant. The plant is a plastic parts manufacturer for i
the automotive industry.
The devices are used to_ eliminate static on component parts during the manufacture of various finished assembly i
products.
j 3.
Insoection History This was.the first NRC inspection at this licensee's facility.
- However, on June 20,'1991, NRC Region III was notified _ by the licensee that 'an-NRD Model P-2051, Serial No.16347 air ionizing unit nominally' containing 10 millicuries polonium-210 was misplaced.
Subsequent discussions indicated that' the device was believed stolen on-or about-
.l August 9, 1989.
l This constituted an unauthorized transfer pursuant to 10 CFR 31.5(c)(8).
A Notice of Violation was transmitted to the licensee by letter dated July 24, 1991.
l i
No response to the Notice of Violation was required as the licensee outlined a corrective action program that included daily accounting of the devices by the first line supervisors and frequent inventory checks ~
by the Health and Safety Department. The licensee also stated that the devices would be hard plumbed into the air lines where possible.
l 4.
Review of the Incidents 10 CFR 31.5(c)(8) requires, in part, that any person who acquires, receives, possesses,~ uses or transfers byproduct material in a device l
2
[
i w
pursuant to the general license shall, except as provided for in 10 CFR 31.5(c)(9), transfer or dispose of the device containing byproduct material only by transfer to persons holding a specific license pursuant to 10 CFR Parts 30 and 32 or from an Agreement State to receive the device.
On October 28, 1992, the licensee reported the loss of an NRD Model P-2051, Serial No. 46408 air ionizing unit nominally containing 10 millicuries of polonium-210 on or about September 23, 1992.
Following identification of the loss, personnel in the work area initiated a search for the device. An area wide search was initiated by various management personnel. Also, all production employees were notified of the loss through the company's weekly newsletter.
In the October 28, 1992, letter, the licensee proposed corrective action that would require first line supervisors to lock all devices, that are not hard plumbed to the line, during the shift when not in use.
This was in addition to the licensee established daily accounting by the first line supervisors and weekly Health and Safety Office inventory of the devices.
Subsequent discussions with the licensee indicated that the device was stolen. The licensee stated that the device was hard plumbed to the line and that inadvertent loss was unlikely and someone who wanted the device removed it from the line.
Based upon the above, the NRC concluded that reasonable measures had been taken by the licensee to secure the device and a Notice of Violation was not issued.
However, during the June 10 and 11, 1993, inspection the inspector noted from licensee records that on September 23, 1992, the air table and line to which the device was attached was disconnected and moved to install l
equipment in the area. The device had to be disconnected to conduct l
this work. Therefore, it does not appear the licensee had implemented l
adequate measures to ensure security of the device as previously described by the licensee. The apparent root cause of this loss was failure to exercise proper oversight by the first line supervisor in accounting for the device on that day.
On March 4,1993, the licensee notified NRC Region III that another NRD Model P-2051, Serial No. 50887 was missing from the facility.
The device was inventoried on January 5,1993, and found missing on January 12, 1993, during the weekly inventory. Again, following identification of the loss, personnel in the work area initiated a search for the device. An area wide search was initiated by various management personnel. Also, all production employees were notified of the loss through the company's weekly newsletter.
Subsequent telephone conversations with the licensee on March 30, 1993 and April 26, 1993, indicated that the device was either stolen or inadvertently dropped into a product tote and shipped to another facility.
The exact fate of the device remains in question.
3 t
i
/
The inspection conducted on June 10 and 11, 1993, revealed that the f
licensee had instituted a corrective action program, as previously
/
described, as a result of the previous incidents.
The program included daily accounting of the devices by the first line supervisors and weekly inventory checks by the Health and Safety Department. This program had been in effect since the Fall of 1991 and was responsible for the identification of this loss.
The inspector verified the licensee's daily and weekly accountability of the devices. The licensee had records of the weekly accountability dating from October of 1991. This accounting system enabled the licensee to promptly identify the loss of the devices in 1992 and 1993.
However, the inspector noted that the first line supervisors do not always lock all devices that are not hard plumbed to the line, during the shift when not in use.
Specifically, on June 11, 1993, a first line supervisor had opened a locker containing the devices to allow the j-production painters to access the devices during the shift.
The supervisor did not lock the unused devices into the locker but rather remained in close proximity and direct line of sight of the locker so the devices remained in the supervisors control.
During the inspection, the supervisor and all device users assigned to the section that lost the device were interviewed regarding the loss in January, 1993. They all indicated that an intense search had been conducted and that three possibilities existed for the loss:
a.
It was left on the air line at the end of the shift and was moved to ancther area in the plant by an employee who needed an air nozzle; b.
It fell into a tote and was shipped to another facility with the products; c.
Someone purposely removed the device from the facility.
None of the workers assigned to that area could recall if they had used the lost device the week of January 5 to January 12, 1993.
The licensee was unable to locate the device in another area of the plant following the search of the plant. The licensee representatives indicated that they did not conduct an off site search at customer assembly facilities.
The apparent root cause of the loss was inadequate security of the device and/or ineffective daily accounting for the devices by the first line supervisor.
At this time it is not clear that the devices were shipped to another facility, transferred in waste to a landfill or removed from the facility by a person or persons. However, it is apparent that the devices are unaccounted for and apparently transferred to a person or persons not specifically licensed to possess them.
4
-si
- 1. -
(
Failure of the licensee to properly transfer the cenerally licensed
.m 5
devices to a specifically licensed individual or individuals is an L
apparent violation of 10 CFR 31.5(c)(8).
One apparent violation of NRC regulations was identified.
-l 5.
Corrective Action.
l l
The licensee indicated that the long term corrective action would include daily supervisor accounting of the devices and weekly inventory-by the Health and Safety staff. To assist in this corrective action, the first line ' supervisors will be provided with anL inventory form for daily accounting.
In addition, the licensee is preparing a five minute video tape presentation on the static elimination' devices for the monthly Health and Safety training session to be held in July. Also,-
l the licensee intends to continue to hard plumb devices'to the air lines where this is practical.
6.
Exit Meetina j
l On June 15, 1993, an exit meeting was conducted by telephone with.
Mr. Bob Campbell, the Production Manager. During the exit meeting we 1
discussed the inspection findings, the NRC enforcement policy, and the
)
licensee's corrective actions. The licensee did not indicate that any j
information contained in this report was proprietary in nature.
I
'l
-l j
i 5
C