ML20128G435
| ML20128G435 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 07001113 |
| Issue date: | 02/02/1993 |
| From: | Mcalpine E, Troup G NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20128G423 | List: |
| References | |
| 70-1113-93-01, 70-1113-93-1, NUDOCS 9302160008 | |
| Download: ML20128G435 (6) | |
Text
- _ - _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _. _ _
,. g#b0%
UNITEU ST ATES 44 NUCLE AR REGULATORY COMMISSION
+
'85 R EOloh',.
n J
,, y 101 MARIET TA STRECT,N W, ATLANTA GEORGIA 30323 g
%...../
i Report No.:
70 1113/93-01 Licensee: General Electric Company Wilmington, NC 28401 Docket No.:
70-1113 License No.:
SNM-1097 Facility Name: Nuclear fuel and Components Manufacturing Inspection Conducted:
anuar 11-15, 1993 Inspector:
2/ 13 G. L. Tr'oup, fuel F 'ility Project inspector la~te $Tgned Approved by:
EDW @($w 2/2 /q3 E. J. McAlpirie, Chief, Chief Date Signed Radiation Safety Pro,iocts Section Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Branch Division of Radiation Safety and Sa.feguards
SUMMARY
Scope:
This routine, unannounced inspection was conducted in the areas of management controls, facility changes, f acility operations, and follow-up of previously identified items.
Results:
Within the scope of the inspection, no violations or deviations were identified. One area identified which needs improvement is the control of periodic inspections to implement nuclear safety requirements (Paragraph 3.d).
9302160008 930202 PDR ADOCK 07001113 C
E r
w 3
REPORT DETAILS
_;n "1. -
Perseas Contacted
- S. Babb, Manager, Lagoon Eliminatic.-
W. Becker, Principal Engineer, Reclaim Support Technical" Resources
- G. Bowman, Senior-Program Manager,-Compliance ~ Improvement-
- T. Brechtlein, Manager, Powder Production
- D. Brown, Manager, Reclaim and Support
- M. Chilton, Manager, Fuel Chemical: Technical-Resources T. Flaherty, Manufacturing Engineer
- T. Hauser, Manager, Environmental Health & Safety and Nuclear-Quality, Assurance'
~
- R. Keenan, Program Manager, Compliance Auditing
- 0. Ludlow, Marnger, Maintenance Strategies H
- D. McCaughey, Nuclear Safety Engineer-
- E. Palmer, Manager,'FM0 Maintenance B. Robinson, Principal Engineer - Nuclear Safety H. Shaver, Nuclear Safety Engineer
- L. Sheely, Senior Program Manager, Fuels
+*P. Sick, Manager,- Quality Assurance-H. Strickler, Manager, Environmental Protection and Industrial Safety:
- R. Torres, Manager, Radiation Protection C. Vaughan,-Manager, Regulatory Compliance-
- f. Welfare, Acting Manager,, Criticality Safety Engineering -
H
- T. Winston, Manager, Licensing and Nuclear Materials Management i
Other licensee employees contacted during this inspection included; m
area coordinators, operators, planners and technicians.
- Attended exit interview
+ Acting Manager, Nuclear Fuel and Components Manufacturing _ at the exit-
-interview 3
2.
Organization-(88005)
On December 1, L1992, the'Vice President & General Manager, GE _
Nuclear Energy announced the creation.of a new group within the Nuclear-Energy organization. :The new organizat' ion, Environmental Health &
l Safety and Nuclear. Quality Assurance, incorporates the Regulatory Compliance-function from the Nuclear-. Fuel &_ Components Manufacturing.
. organization. However, LRegulatory Compliance will-continue to Learry.oute the responsibilities assigned under;the facility license in' areas:such nuclear criticality, safety, _ radiation protection, and environmental monitoring. A revision to Part111,- Chapter 11: of the license :
application reflecting this change was submitted to the NRC'on December 17, 1992. No licensing action was. necessary. for; the change.
The Manager, Criticality l Safety Enijineering has been ' reassign'ed-as al
~
Program Manager in' Manufacturing Engineering. An Acting Manager has been appointed pending a management decision.on the organization-within--
4 i
e s
e d
=
r e
s
.~..
i'8~
7 2
Regulatory Compliance.
The inspector verified that the Acting Manager met the requirements of Part 1,'Section 2.5.3 of the License Application for the position.
L No violations or deviations were identified.
3.
Surveillance and Inspections (88015, 88025) a.
Nuclear Safety Instruction (NSI) 0-4.0~, Nuclear Safety Instrumentation, Appendix C specifies the requirements for the weekly checks and alarm (horn) tests and for-the-ann'ual' calibration of the criticality nonitoring.systen detectors, y
Technician Information-Oocument XVI, Part C_provides detailed instructions for doing the checksLand calibrations' by the technicians.
The. inspector reviewed the records for the annual calibration of the installed detectors conducted in November 1992.- All' detectors responded within the specified range for the-two points. The inspector-also reviewed t.he records for the weekly _ source response and horn checks for the months of June and December,1992
.During-a test in. June, one detector' failed to respond within specification.
A work order was written to. replace the detector.-
Subsequent checks were within specification, All. other checks and:
tests were within specification.
4 No violations or deviat'7n were -identified
~
+
b.
Nuclear Safety Release / Requirements-(N3R/R) 02.01.18 incorporates the list of Active Engineered Controls (AECs) for systems in the' Uranium Recycle V_ nit (URV) which must be functionally tested-annually per Section 6 7 of the' License Application.-
A total of -
102 controls are covered by the NSR/R.= The inspector reviewed the memorandum which summarized.the testing Land: se_lected _ completed' Functional Test Instructions"(FTis).= The inspector lnoted:that during the testing ii. 0ctober - December-1992,' 30 tests required-revision..The inspector reviewed selected procedures'andLverifiea that the changes had been properly ' approved.
For tests that'-
failed initially, the inspector reviewed the' completed! test fori five tests-after corrective actions'had been taken and determined that the results were satisfactory.
No violations or deviations were identified.
c.
Inspector Follow up Item (IFI) 91-06 13, Implementation of Functional Test Controls, dealt -with the need to establish.a:
system to assure that-FTIs were identified'as becoming due and the-status tracked to assure that coritrol isLmaintained.
A p lot; program has-been instituted using the MIPVAX system to track 12.
FTIs. The objective is 'to eventually be able to track 1and1 schedule the tests. While the. pilot _ program'is based on URV tests, a control system to: assure completion of FTIs will be-(
- ?=A p
^2
.c 3
required.for other~ portions of the plant (such as URLS and_ hie).
In conjunction with this activity, the licensee has a review of FTIs on going to update the_ tests to reflect operational-acceptability as' compared to the preoperational orl acceptance L.
test, as many FTis were written. The result of these activities.
will be reviewed during subsequent inspections.
IFI 91-06 remains open.
No violations or deviations were identified.
d.
Process Requirement and Operator Documents.(PRODS) require that; certain process tanks and sumps be periodically inspected for~ the accumulation of uranium-bearing materials. The frequency of-inspection varies between tanks based en the potential for:
precipitation during the process.
The PRODS require the_results of the inspections be reported.to Nuclear Safety Engineering.
The inspection results were reported by various memoranda but there
~
was no single file or computer file that recorded'the; completion-and forecast the next inspection due date.
Since the conduct of-these inspections require-that~the tanks 1he out'of service, the-use of the P.IPVAX-or_ot'ner' data base system-may be used'to document the. status.
Licensee representatives-stated that;a
~
mechanism to track-thesefinspections would be investigated.
No violations or deviations were identified.
4.
System Modifications'(88015)
As part of the licensee's program to upgrade the. control of uranium-bearing streams going to unfavorable geometry tanks, modifications were made to the Fluoride Waste (FW) to install automatic measurement instrumentation-(in-line uranium monitors). and associateo controit valves in the discharge line and 'the: recycle line. These' modifications.are similar to_ those. installed in-the_ Nitrate Waste andLRad Waste systems under Performance l Improvement Program,; Item ~6'.
The inspector reviewed the Facility Change Requests (FCRs), updated system drawings, operating-procedures, and completed, functional tests :
for the controls. _The installations were. handled as two separate modifications. The' inspector reviewed the completed FCRs-and determined that the requirements had been-signed off and the modifications. released' for use. During the inspector period, the" inspector observed the-operation of part of the system.
No violations or deviations were ' identified m
- - =
~
E :;.
0 '*
4-5.
Review of Operational Safety-Assessment findings (99025)
An Operational Safety _ Assessment (OAS) was conducted by the-NRC at the licensee's_ facility in March 1991.
Findingc of the assessment were reported in Inspection Report 70-1113/91-02.
By--letter dated August 23,-
1991, the licensee responded to the assessment findings and described the corrective actions being taken on the specific follow-up items, a,
'IFl 91-02-02 addressed ineffective preventive maintenance (PM)?for--
rotating machinery, which was evidenced by discolored oi.1 in the-sight glasses of small pumps and other roteting machinery. The-licensee's response, dated August 23, 1991, stated that PM requirements would be established using the MIPVAX computer system.
b.
The inspector discussed the PM programs which had been established with maintenance personnel.
The PM programs have been established at three levels (planned, pre a tive and predictive) and are-applicable to all rotating machinery (such as centrifuges and defluorinators), not just pumps.
The different levels.of the PM program are conducted at different frequencies,- such as weekly for -
planned. All activities are scheduled and completion do-umented in the MIPVAX system.
Special repairs 'are also documented by-work-order, and entered into the system. The inspector also. discussed -
the methods in use as part of the predictive maintenance program, c.
Based on the discussions with maintenance personnel and the records from the MIPVAX' system, the-inspector determined that the licensee had implemented the PM program as committed.
IFI 91-02-02-is closed.
6.
Audits (88005, 88015)
Part I, Section 2.8.1 of the license application requires that-audits of-operations be conducted quarterly to determine that: criticality-safety and radiation safety-requirements:are being met.
P/P 40-6.
" Regulatory; Compliance Audits" establishes the criteria and framework for the audit program and NSI E-2.0, " Internal Nuclear Safety Audits" specifies.the requirements for planning (pre-audit review, audit plan, etc.) and conducting the audit.. NSE has prepared auditl noks for different areas or operations, which include a check list of NSR/R-requirements for that-area.
The check lists are used both as a
)lanning tool to identify those specific topics which should be chec(ed and as a means.to document.
which items-have been'~ checked.
' Audit findings are documented in reports and are submitted to the' Wilmington Safety-Review Committee (WSRC) at quarterly meetings. The p
WSRC reviews classified and reportable incidents, audit finding
~
(especially those: categorized as potential noncompljances (PNCs)). The.
WSRC'is-also responsibl_e for evaluating trends in_ audits findings and; the root cause for any com.nonolity.
The inspector reviewed'the audit report for the fourth quarter, 1992 and. discussed the' audit findings t
g-
,4
-c-n-y g
r, A-e-
5 with an audit coordinator.
Based on the changes which had been made during the last year in the scope of audits, and the trend review by the WSRC, two IFis relating to the audit program are closed:
IFI 91-03-04 Ifl 91-06-06 No violations or deviations were identified.
7.
Review of Previous Inspection findings (88010, 88025,88055) a.
(Closed) Violation 92-12-01 The violation involved the failure to conduct quarterly training for Emergency Response Team (ERT) members on all shifts.
Corrective actions to assure that training is scheduled and completed are specified in the licensee's response of October 30, 1992.
The inspector reviewed the licensee's system which was.
established to track the status of training ?.nti discussed the implementation of the training with cognizart individuah.
The inspector also determined that the all shifts of the ERT received the designated training during the fourth quarter of 1992.
b.
(Closed) Violation 92-12-02 The violation involved the failure to conduct inspections and test of alarms involving valves in the fire water system.
Corrective action to assure that the required tests are conducted are specified in the licensee's responsc of October 30, 1992.
The inspector reviewed the new check lists and methuds used to verify that the valves are inspected and tested as required. The inspector also discussed the additional training which had been provided to the personnel who perform the tests.
Since monthly tests ir.volve verifying that alarms sound in the emergency center when the valves are closed, a licensee representative advised'tne inspector that the installation of a separate printer to log the alarms was being considered.
This would create a record. copy of the alarm tests without disrupting the official alarm recorder.
8.
Exit Interview (30703)
The inspect.on scope and results were summarized on January 15, 1993, with those persons indicated in Paragraph 1.
The inspector described these areas inspected and discussed in detail the inspection findings and the inspector's observations.
(
Although proprietary documents and processes were reviewed during the inspection, proprietary infctmation is not contained in this report.
L