ML20133E471

Insp Rept 70-1113/85-09 on 850611-14.No Violations or Deviations Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Nuclear Criticality Safety,Operations Review,Maint & New Facilities

ML20133E471
Person / Time
Site:	07001113
Issue date:	06/26/1985
From:	Mcalpine E, Troup G NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
To:
Shared Package
ML20133E453	List: ML20133E449 ML20133E471
References
70-1113-85-09, 70-1113-85-9, NUDOCS 8508070713
Download: ML20133E471 (5)

Text

.

UNITED STATES

[5 3ifo ug*o NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIOfJ

- # REGloN 11

[ n 101 MARIETTA STREET, N.W.

g j

• ATLANTA, GEORGI A 30323

%.....# JUN 2 61985 Report No.: 70-1113/85-09 Licensee: General Electric Company Wilmington, NC 28401 Docket No.: 70-1113 License No.: SNM-1097 Facility Name: General Electric Company Inspection Conducted: June - 14, 1985 Inspector: b G[r.sY&f G. L. Troup ' Date Signed Approved by: *OOee E. J. M8 Alpine, Section Chief 6[2(,/25 Date Signed Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards

SUMMARY

Scope: This routine, unannounced inspection entailed 30 inspector-hours on site in the areas of nuclear criticality safety, operations review, maintenance and new facilities.

Results: No violations or deviations were identified.

8508070713 850626 PDR ADOCK 07001113 C PDR

REPORT DETAILS

1. Persons Contacted Licensee Employees

• W. W. McMahon, Manager, Quality Assurance

• G. W. McKenzie, Acting Manager, Manufacturing Technology and Engineering Operations

• R. A. Petelinkar, Manager, Site Operations and Materials Systems

• C. M. Vaughan, Manager, Regulatory Compliance

• B. F. Bentley, Manager, Fuel Chemical Operations

• A. G. Dada, Manager, Chemical and Ceramic Engineering M. L. Faris, Manager, Major Projects D. W. Brown, Manager, Uranium Recycle Operation L. Roth, Manager, Chemical Equipment Engineering L. A. Divins, Manager, Chemical Processing J. R. Watkins, Acting Manager, Powder Production

• R. L. Torres, Manager, Radiation Protection

• W. C. Peters, Manager, Nuclear Safety Engineering J. T. Taylor, Sr. Nuclear Safety Engineer G. M. Bowman, Sr. Nuclear Safety Engineer S. P. Murray, Sr. Nuclear Safety Engineer

• R. H. D. Foleck, Sr. Specialist - License Engineering B. S. Dunn, Specialist, Licensing Support

• R. J. Keenan, Nuclear Safety Engineer Other licensee employees contacted included technicians, operators, and office personnel.

• Attended exit interview

2. Exit Interview The inspection scope and findings were summarized on June 14,1985, with those persons indicated in paragraph 1 above. The inspector described the areas inspected and discussed in detail the inspection findings listed below. No dissenting comments were received from the licensee. The licensee stated that design, process and operational information associated with the Uranium Process Management Project (UPMP) would be considered company proprietary under the terms of 10 CFR 2.790.

3. Licensee Action on Previous Enforcement Matters This subject was not addressed in the inspection.

g - - - - - - - , - - - - - - - ,.m - a.-, - n-----------,n~----- - - - - . . - - -- - - - , = - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . - . - -. - - - -

2

4. Nuclear Criticality Safety (88015)

a. Facility Modification and Changes The inspector reviewed four facilities change requests and the associated nuclear safety analyses. The inspector verified that the analyses were conducted using approved evaluation methods and that the analyses were verified by an independent reviewer. The inspector also verified that preoperational audits had been conducted prior tc the issuance of the final approval by Nuclear Safety Engineering, and that a Nuclear Safety Release / Requirement (NSR/R) had been approved by the Area Manager and Nuclear Safety Engineering prior to issuance.

No violations or deviations were identified.

b. Nuclear Safety Analysis Methods The inspector discussed the methods used to perform nuclear safety calculations with the cognizant individuals and verified that the methods used were in accordance with the licensee requirements.

Calculational methods which may be used and individuals designated as qualified to perform analyses and/or to perform the independent verification are specified in NSI E-4.0, " Criticality Safety Analysis Methods and Verification". A licensee representative informed the inspector that while certain methods are authorized for performing the calculations, they presently are not being used; three approved codes are presently used.

No violations or deviations were identified.

c. Nuclear Safety Audits Sections 2.8.1 and 2.8.3 of the license application specify require-ments for internal quarterly audits and bi-annual external audits. The inspector reviewed the written report for the first quarter internal audit conducted in March 1985 and an external audit conducted by the Quality Assurance and Reliability Operation (QAR0) in May 1984. The inspector verified that the audit findings were documented and submitted to management, that corrective actions were documented, and each item closed after the adequacy was determined. The inspector determined that the second quarter audit had been performed in June 1985, although the final audit report had not been issued at the time of the inspection. An audit was also conducted by QAR0 in'May 1985, but the report had not yet been received onsite.

No violations or deviations were identified by the inspector.

d. Criticality Alarm System The annual calibration of the criticality alarm system was previously reviewed in inspection report 70-1113/85-07. The inspector discussed

~

s 3

the weekly functional test of the system with licensee representatives and reviewed the test results for the period April 15 - June 7, 1985.

No violations or deviations were identified.

e. SNM Containers Table 13.7 of the license application lists the shipping containers authorized for use by the licensee. A licensee representative informed the inspactor tiiat iia other contaiaecs werc in Jse. Durir.3 to'rr: af the facility the inspector did not observe any shipping containers which were not listed in Table 13.7.

f. Procedures The inspector reviewed the following procedures for performing nuclear safety analyses:

P/P 40-5, rev. 4 (1/14/85), Nuclear Safety Review Syster.i P/P 40-16, rev. 6 (modified 3/22/85), Nuclear Safety NSI E-1.0, rev. 8 (10/26/84), Nuclear Safety Review Records NSI E-3.0, rev. 9 (10/26/84), Nuclear Safety Review Requests NSI E-4.0, rev. 8, (9/6/84), Criticality Safety Analysis Methods and Verification The inspector verified that the procedures were periodically reviewed as required by internal procedures, and that revised procedures had been reviewed and approved in accordance with the administrative requirements.

No violations or deviations were identified.

5. Operations Review (88020)

a. Tours During the inspection, tours were made of various work areas to observe operations. Items reviewed or verified included:

(1) Special nuclear material was stored in arrays on carts, conveyors, and process areas, and in designated storage locations in accordance with license requirements.

(2) Differential pressure readings for filters and enclosures were within the authorized limits.

(3) Housekeeping and industrial safety provisions in all areas was acceptaole.

(4) Unsafe geometry containers were authorized and controlled through administrative or mechanical controls.

4 (5) Operating procedures (PRODS) were available in the various areas.

Nuclear Safety Release / Requirements and Radiological Safety Instructions were also available.

b. Compressed Gas Cylinders The inspector observed approximately six compressed gas cylinders in a storage area which were not constrained by a rope or chain in accordance with good industrial safety practices. While these cyliada-c were insid9 .of a locked, fenced area, the inspector noted that the other cylinders in the area, including those marked " EMPTY" were constrained. Licensee management representatives acknowledged this and stated that the cylinders would be constrained. The inspector had no further questions.

6. Maintenance (88025)

a. The inspector discussed the conduct and control of maintenance activities with the cognizant managers. Basic procedural requirements are contained in SAR 340-84-JLH-27, " Request for MT&E0 Maintenance Assistance." Specific requirements for work are specified in the Maintenance Work Request (routine or non-routine work) and the Radia-tion Work Permit. Nuclear and radiological safety requirements, as well as industrial safety requirements, are specified in Job Hazard Analysis documents.

b. The cognizant managers also discussed the responsibilities between operations and maintenance for system alignment and preparation, cleanout of SNM, performance of work, testing and return to service.

The inspector had no further questions.

7. Uranium Process Management Project (UPMP)

a. The inspectc4 toured the UPMP area and discussed the status of the various parts of the system. Because of the arrangement of the various subsystems, testing and startup can be done with the subsystem indepen-dently of other parts of the system.

b. The inspector reviewed the nuclear safety analyses and draft Nuclear Safety Release / Requirements for various components and subsystems.

The inspector also reviewed the file " Documentation of UPMP Training to Date" which outlined the training received, including training at vendor facilities, by shift supervisors, operators, laboratory personnel, mechanics, instrumentation technicians and radiation protection personnel. A licensee representative also explained that.

operations and maintenance personnel are engaged in the check-out and testing of the system, which provides additional on-the-job training.

'No violations or deviations were identified.