ML20137D522

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Sanitized Safeguards Insp Rept 70-1113/83-21 on 830725-29. Violation Noted:Failure to Correctly Calculate Limits of Error Associated W/Receipt of Uranyl Nitrate Solution
ML20137D522
Person / Time
Site: 07001113
Issue date: 08/15/1983
From: Mcalpine E, Richards B
NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
To:
Shared Package
ML20137D194 List:
References
FOIA-85-554 70-1113-83-21, NUDOCS 8511270089
Download: ML20137D522 (4)
v • d • e


Text

-

' w. .. .

_ . ;. . . 4c.,.44 . . . , . , , ;. ;c . . : c , . . .. .

jct.E AA REGULATORY COMMisslON 1 ftEGioN 88 I i '* '.

  • 191 M ARIE TT A STH E E T. N.W.

i ATtanT4. cEonci A sosos aa ,.c. . w

~

Report No. 70-1113/83-21 ~

Docket No. 70-1113 License No. SNM-1097 Safeguards Group No. III Licensee: General Electric Company P. O. Box 780 Wilmington, NC 28402 Date of' Inspection: July 25-29, 1983 Type of Inspection: Unannounced Material Control and Accountability Inspector: h. .

((i$ /'N3 B. L. Richards, Statistician Date u gned Approved y: ') _ R/ _v -[ .i ,.7 j f E.9 . McAlp'ine, Chief. Material Control and Date Signed j Accountability Section, Safeguards Branch Division of Emergency Preparedness and Materials _ Safety Programs  !

Inspection Summary Areas Inspected: Shipping and Receiving of Special Nuclear Material.

The inspection involved 31 inspector hours by one NRC inspector and was oegun during the regular hours.

Results: The licensee was found to be in compliance with NRC requirements in the one area examined during the inspection e. cept for the following item:

Failure to correctly calculate limits of error associated with receipts of uranyl nitrate solution.

8511270089 851119 PDR FOIA PDR RATNER 85-554 ,

. . . . . . . . ... - =e

- er

.. W

/ .-

REPDRT DETAILS Report No. 70-1113/83-21 -

1. Key Persons Contacted R. L. Bruce, Analyst, Licensing and' Nuclear Materials Management
  • P. N. Dennison, Specialist, Licensing and Nuclear Materials Management W. B. Haverty, Analyst, Licensing and Nuclear Materials Management
  • W. J. Hendry, Manager, Regulatory Compliance
  • G. R. Mallett, Senior Engineer, Measurements and Statistics C. L. Nixoa. Technician, Licensing and Nuclear Materials Management
  • C. M. Vaughan, Manager, Licensing and Nuclear Materials Management The inspector also interviewed several other licensee employees.
  • Denotes those present at the exit interview
2. Shipping and Receiving The. licensee's program of acco.unting for special nuclear material (SNM) shipped and received during the period June 1982 through June 1983 was inspected. The inspection consisted of a review of the nuclear material accounting procedures for shipping and receiving, a- selected examination of the licensee's records pertaining to specific transactions and the source of the data used to generate those records, a review of the licensee's system for evaluating shipper - receiver differences, and an examination of the methods used for calculating limits of error associated with shipments and receipts. The records selected for review pertained to transactions involving receipts of uranyl nitrate solution and shipments of uranium dioxide powder and fuel assemblies to foreign vendors.

As SNM was shipped and received, supporting documentation was generated by the Measurements and Statistics Section, Traffic and Materials Distribution, Fuels Manufacturing (Shop Support), the Chemet Laboratory, and MBA custodians. These various organizations were responsible for c' e king shipping and receiving documentation, seal identification and condition,

, item piece count and identification, and for assuring that quantitative measurement data were obtained. The Records and Reports Section used these data to ccmplete the Nuclear Material Transaction Reports (Form NRC-741).

The NRC-741 forms were issued or receipted and returned within the specified time requirements.

Shipper-receiver differences (SRDs) for raceipts of uranyl nitrate solution were evaluated on a line entry basis and on a shipment basis utilizing the computed limits of error. During th inspection, no significant SRDs were detected in this area. The licensee appeared to have an adequate program, however, for evaluating significant SRDs for receipts of uranyl nitrate solution. The licensee calculated limits of error for each shipment or receipt on a line entry basis and on a shipment basis. The licensee's

'. . ;* '. " C 'J.

? -- , -

. ....n y . . . ~ .. n

. 2 methods for c'alculating limits of error were examined and found to be appropriate excep't for limits of error associated with receipts of uranyl nitrate solution. It was determined that ,the licensee incorrectly calcu-lated limits of error in this area. The licensee inadvertently used incor-rect parameters in the limit of error calculation-. The random sampling error associated with uranium concentration measuremen'sf t

! j Thus, an important parameter in the limit of error calculation was The number of samples on which the corresponding uranium concentration factor was based. The licensee's sampling plan and analytical reports from the Chemet Laboratory indicated that( _sampies were taken from each receipt. However, the licensee used lfor this oarameter in the limit of error calculation. These erroneous ca culations resulted in the licensee's reported limit of error being significantly understated. The licensee also used an incorrect parameter in the random weighing component of the limit,of error calculation. The_ number of weighings associated with receipts _of(_ was(

a factor oft wasusedinthe)limitoferrorcalculation., as indicated Randombyweighing the license error was a small contributor to the limit of error. Therefore, this second oversight did not significantly contribute to the large differences between the licensee's reported limits of error and the actual limits of error. The licensee's incorrect choice .of values for these two parameters was identi-

(.[dt,_ fled for. every receipt of' uranyl nitrate so'lution that was rev'iewed during

.w x the inspection. Some isolated cases were also identified in which incorrect

g. s , parameters were employed in the limit of error calculation. These incidences were discussed with the licensee. The licensee's erroneous calculations caused limits of error (grams uraium) associated with uranyl nitrate receipts to be understated by 25 to 38 percent, for those limit of error calculations reveiwed by the inspector. In the worst case, the licensee understated the limit of error for a particular receipt (ZOM-YLJ 263, received December 6,1982) by 5718 grams uranium. The licensee's failure to correctly calculate limits of error associated with receipts of uranyl nitrate solution is a violation. (83-21-01). The violatirn appeared to be the result of an oversight by the licensee and lack of formal proce-dures in this area.

The licensee's program to monitor cumulative SRDs for receints of uranium hexfluoride and uranyl nitrate solution was also examined.]

[ It was determined that the licensee's statistical techniques in this area were appropriate. The licensee appeared to have an adequate system in place for evaluating cumulative SRDs. However, the licensee indicated that a programming error prevented the acquisition of a recent printout displaying the for uranyl nitrate receipts. A review of the licensee's evaluation of cumulative SRDs for uranyl nitrate receipts will be cenducted during a subsequent inspection. (83-21-02) t ee 4

_, . :_. . .. ,, .. e . . . ..

~

. a

.- 3

3. Exit Int'ervi,ew The inspection scope and findings were summarized on July 29, 1983, with those persons indicated in paragraph 1 above.

M e

9 9

~ ~..s.. . ._.,..,

.

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20137D522&oldid=2834885"