ML20196D402
| ML20196D402 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 02/05/1988 |
| From: | Baker E, Cilimberg R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20196D254 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-QA-99900003 NUDOCS 8802170103 | |
| Download: ML20196D402 (6) | |
Text
. ..
ORGANIZATION: GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA REPORT INSPECTION INSPECTION N0.: 99900003/87-01 DATES: 12/07-11/87 ON-SITE HOURS: 31 CORRESPONDENCE ADDRESS: General Electric Company Nuclear Fuel and Components Manufacturing Facility ATTN: Mr. E. A. Lees, Manager Post Office Box 780 Wilmington, North Carolina 28402 ORGANIZATIONAL CONTACT: Mr. J. W. Currier, Jr.
TELEPHONE NUMBER: (919) 343-5874 NUCLEAR INDUSTRY ACTIVITY: Nuclear fuel assembly and BWR core hardware supplier for GE desigt,ed reactors and fuel pellet fabrication for Babcock and Wilcox (B&W) fuel assemblies.
ASSIGNED INSPECTOR: /
41 dd R. L. Cilimbhg, Programhevelopment and Reactive Date k
InspectionSection(PDRIS)
OTHERINSPECTOR(S): B. J. Mincher, Consultant APPROVED BY: , C. V 8 E. T. Baker, Acting Chief PDRIS, Vendor Inspection Branch Date ;
INSPECTION BASES AND SCOPE:
A. BASES: 10 CFR 50, Appendix B,10 CFR Part 21.
B. SCOPE: Follow-up allegations related to activities in the Chemet Laboratory ano Quality Assurance (QA) program implementation related to fabrication of GE fuel.
1 1
PLANT SITE APPLICABILITY: BWR facilities with fuel supplied by GE and BM facilities with fuel pellets supplied by GE. -
8802170103 880211 PDR GA999 EMVGENE 99900003 PDR l
l ORGANIZATION: GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA REPORT INSPECTION NO.- 99900003/87-01 RESULTS: PAGE 2 of 6 A. VIOLATIONS:
None.
B. NONCONFORMANCES:
- 1. Contrary to Criterion V of Appendix B to 10 CFR 50 and Section 1 of Changeroom PROD No. 86.06, "General Lab Controlled Area Rules,"
Revision 0, dated January 20, 1987, a GE non-laboratory employee was chewing gum in the Chemet Laboratory. (87-01-01)
- 2. Contrary to Criterion V of Appendix B to 10 CFR 50 and Section 4.C of the Foreword to Chemical Metallurgical & Spectrochemical (CMaS)
Manual, Revision 7, dated June 18, 1986, a pen and ink change was made to Analytical Test Method (ATM) 1.2.8.3, "Determination of Hydrogen in Zirconium, Its Alloys, U09 Sintered Pellets and UO, -
Gd,03 by Inert Gas Fusion," Revision 7, dated September 19, 1986, with0ut initiating a formal revision to ATM 1.2.8.3, Revision 7.
(87-01-02)
- 3. Contrary to Criterion V of Appendix B to 10 CFR 50, ATM 1.2.8.3, Revision 7 did not document the steps being used by the technician to clean the LECO Impulse Furnace (LIF). (87-01-03)
- 4. Contrary to Criterion V of Appendix B to 10 CFR 50, ATM 1.2.8.3, Revision 7, did not document the technician physically bumping the LIF to evenly distribute the flux material. (87-01-04)
- 5. Contrary to Criterion V of Appendix B to 10 CFR 50, ATM 1.2.8.3, Revision 7, did not provide guidance for the action taken by a technician when a pellet does not drop into the crucible in the LIF.
(87-01-05)
C. UNRESOLVED ITEMS:
None.
D. STATUS OF PREVIOUS INSPECTION FINDINGS:
Not applicable.
l ORGANIZATION: GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA REPORT INSPECTION NO.- 99900003/87-01 RESULTS: PAGE 3 of 6 E. INSPECTION FINDINGS AND OTHER COMMENTS:
- 1. Entrance and Exit Meetings The NRC staff informed GE management representatives of the scope of the inspection during the entrance meeting on December 7,1987, and summarized the inspection findings and observations during the exit meeting on December 11, 1987.
- 2. Allegation An allegation was received by the NRC concerning the GE Chenet Laboratory which stated that lab technicians and supervisors eat food and chew gum in the laboratory and cheat on various analytical tests being performed in the laboratory. Chewing gum in the labora-tory was substantiated as discussed in Section 3(d) below. The allegation also stated that false numbers were being put into a report by a technician instead of running the tests for hydrogen in U0,3 fuel pellets. The allegation also stated that technicians were chf!ating because they were completing their tests in a short period of time. The NRC inspectors could not substantiate these allegations because technicians testing for hydrogen in UO, Nel pellets were observed to be adhering to procedural time requirements and to be entering correct numbers into a computer system instead of a report.
The computer system is identified as the LMCS system and is discussed in Section E.3.c. below.
- 3. Chemet Laboratory The NRC inspectors reviewed test procedures and results and observed analytical work being performed in the Chemet Laboratory,
- a. Procedure Review The following test procedures were reviewed: ATM 1.2.8.3, Revision 7; ATM 1.2.7.2, "Analysis of Backfill Gas," Revision 3, dated February 20, 1985; SCP204, "Analysis of Backfill Gas at Wilmington," Revision 7. dated June 4, 1986; SCP205, "Rod MICS Controls," Revision 3, dated November 26, 1985; SCP215 "Thermal Simulation," Revision 5, dated February 27, 1986; SCP226, "Thermal Simulation (Manual Meas.)," Revision 0, dated September 23, 1985; CMS 1.2.4.8, "Geometric Density Measurement of B&W Fuel Pellets for use with the Thernal Simulation Test,"
ORGANIZATION: GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA REPORT INSPECTION N0.: 99900003/87-01 RESULTS: PAGE 4 of 6 Revision 3, dated September 11, 1986; and the LEC0 Instruction Manual for the RH-1EN Hydrogen Determinator Model 772-800/BCD, Copyright LECO Corporation,1975.
The procedural review revealeo that a pen and ink change had been made on ATM 1.2.8.3, Revision 7, which deleted the word "glass" from the procedure. A revised procedure had not been formally issued as required by the CMS Manual, Revision 7.
(See nonconformance 87-01-02.)
- b. Observation of Analyses The NRC inspectors observed technicians performing analyses utilizing the procedures discussed above.
(1) Technicians were observed cleaning the LIF between analyses of hydrogen in U0 fuel pellets. ATM 1.2.8.3., Revision 7, did not provide afly instructions for this cleaning step.
(See nonconformance 87-01-03.)
(2) Technicians were observed bumping the LIF with their hands during one step in the hydrogen analysis. The technicians stated that t' umping the LIF distributes the flux material.
ATM 1.2.8.3, Revision 7, did not provide any instructions for bumping the furnace. (See nonconformance 87-01-04.)
(3) After the completion of a hydrogen analysis, the technician pellet had not dropped into the discovered crucible that in the the V0,he LIF. T technician explained that the pellet does not drop into the crucible during approximately 10 percent of the analyses. When the pellet does not drop, the technician reruns the analysis but ATM 1.2.8.3, instructions to the Revision technician7ondidstuck not provide pellets. any(See nonconformance 87-01-05.)
(4) ATM 1.2.8.3, Revision 7 requires that verification samples be analyzed after 25 UOp pellets have been analyzed for hydrogen. The inspectors determined that two technicians analyzed verification samples in accordance with the procedure and the LMCS data system acceptance criteria.
(See Section E.3.c. below.) l (5) The inspectors determined that technicians were performing analyses in accordance with CMS 1.2.7.2, Revision 3 and CMS 1.2.4.8, Revision 3.
l '
ORGANIZATION: GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA t
REPORT INSPECTION NO.: 99900C03/87-01 RESULTS: PAGE 5 of 6 I
- c. Computerized Data and Calibration / Verification System The Chemet Laboratory uses a system identified as'LMCS which employs computer tracking of data and calibration requirements.
The inspectors reviewed the calibration histories for equipment and the verification sample data used for 2 hydrogen analyzers.
The LMCS system requires that the hydrogen analyzers be calibra-ted prior to analyzing UO fuel pellets for hydrogen content.
The calibration data must 2be entered into the LMCS system or the LMCS system will not accept hydrogen test results. A technician could enter false hydrogen test results only after false calibration data was entered. The NRC inspectors observed only correct calibration data and hydrogen test results being entered into the LMCS system by two technicians.
- d. Radiation Protection The NRC inspectors observed a GE non-laboratory employee chewing gum in the Chemet Laboratory. The GE employee discontinued chewing gum when it was brought to his attention, and he stated that his action deviated from Changeroom PROD No. 86.06, Revision 0. This substantiates part of the allegation discussed in Section 2. above. (See nonconformance 87-01-01.)
- e. Conclusions l
The technicians knew their analytical responsibilities as evidenced by their ability to achieve hydrogen results with techniques that were not documented in ATM 1.2.8.3, Revision 7.
ATM 1.2.8.3, "Determination of Hydrogen in Zirconium, its Alloys, U07 Sintered Pellets, and UO7 - Gd9 0g Pellets by Inert Gas l Fusion," Revision 6, dated December 10, 1967, was prepared during the inspection to respond to nonconformances 87-01-02 through 87-01-05. The revised procedure is responsive to the nonconfor-mances, but had not been approved prior to the exit meeting en December 11, 1987.
- 4. Fuel Manufacturing l
The NRC inspectors observed various steps in fuel pellet grinding and inspection, end cap weld inspection, and fuel bundle packaging to assure that processes were being performed according to written procedures by qualified operators. Fuel manufacturing steps were performed in accordance with the following procedures: QCOR 3.1.4.1, l
(
ORGANIZATION: GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA REPORT INSPECTION NO.: 99900003/87-01 RESULTS: PAGE 6 of 6 "Pellet Grinding," Revision 11, dated November 1, 1985; QC II 3.2.3.1, "Pellet Grinding," Revision 21, dated December 1, 1986; QNFD 1292, "Pellet Diameter Overcheck," Revision 1, dated October 31, 1987; QCOR 7.2.7.2, "First Weld Inspection," Revision 19, dated October 28, 1987; and QCOR 5.1.10. "Packaging of Fuel Bundles,"
Revision 16, dated July 1, 1986. No items of nonconformance or unresolved items were identified.
- 5. Internal Audits The inspectors reviewed internal audit reports for 1987 to determine conformance with the GE QA program. Internal audits are performed in accordance with P/P 30-13, "Internal Quality Audit Program,"
Revision 9, dated October 29, 1985. Production and inspection areas are audited at an interval of at least once each calendar year.
Personnel performing internal audits must meet the requirements of QASAR 320-150.01, "Training and Qualification of QA Internal Audit Personnel," Revision 7, dated July 14, 1986. The inspectors reviewed the qualification and training files for auditors performing the 1987 internal audits and determined that the auditors met the requirements of QASAR 320-150.01, Revision 7.
F. PERSONS CONTACTED:
D. Carroll
- J. Currier P. Custer H. Fields R. Hoffman ;
- P. Jasinski D. Joyner i
- J. Liberman
- W. McMahon
{
l S. Murray <
C. Ogle l R. Patterson l
- D. Pensinger B. Pierce J. Pierce l
- E. Schaefer
- L. Sheely )
G. Smithwick )
J. Wolf ;
1
- Attended exit meeting, i
1