ML20198L515
| ML20198L515 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/23/1997 |
| From: | Steven Baggett NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | Camper L, Combs F, Piccone J NRC |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20198L519 | List: |
| References | |
| SSD, NUDOCS 9710270059 | |
| Download: ML20198L515 (5) | |
Text
octob3r 23, 1997
.OTE TO: Generic Assessment Panel Fred C. Combs Larry W. Camper Josephine M. Piccone Kevin M. Ramsey FROM: Steven L Baggett, Section Leader OriginalSign8dBY:
Sented Source Safety Section StevenL Baggett Medical, Academic, and Commercial Use Safety Branch Division of Industrial and Medical Nuclear Safety, NMSS
SUBJECT:
REQUEST TO EVALUATE GENERIC IMPLICATIONS OF A POSITIVE LEAK TEST RESULT FOR AN AMERSHAM MODEL CDC.CY l WELL LOGGING SOURCE USED BY TUCKER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
l The following information is provided to the Generic Assessment Panelin response to your request for analysis and follow-up of the letter dated April 29,1997, from Tucker Technologies, Inc. (TTl) to the NRC, regarding positive leak test on an Amersham Model CDC.CY well-logging source. Based on review of the information obtained from Region IV and the State of Illinois, it does not appear that the incident indicate a generic product problem. The apparent reason for the positive leak test result was contamination in the ,.
source weld material released through wear on the weld. The wear occurred due to an inner 0-ring, designed to hold the source firmly i'1 place inside the bull plug, not being installed when Amersham loaded the source into the TTI source holder design. Amersham indicated, to the State of Illinois, that this 0-ring was not installed due to concems that the radiation would cause deterioration of the O. ring, resulting in corrosion of the source. The State of Illinois plans to conduct a regulc QA inspection of Amersham in the near future. During the inspection, the State plans to review Amersham's source loading procedures, including those procedures dealing with situativns where the final source loading differs from the initial customer request, or customer submitted drawings. The State will notify the NRC if the inspection reveals anything that may indicate a generic problem with Amersham's source loading procedures. With regard to the apparent cause of the positive leak test, TTI has changed the material used in the inner 0-ring to use a material that has been tested to withstand the effects of radiation. This should close ticket # IMNS 5788.
-.rnc:
q J .. J g
lkhklllhllf Distribution: id 4'5' W C C' "P' IMNS r/f NE02 SSD 7h Ticket # IMNS 5788 NR 0136-S 191-S DOCUMENT NAME: C:\SSSS\ TICKETS \lMNS5788. GAP T3 tocchre e copy of this docurnant. Indicata in the boa: 'C' = Copy w,thout attachmentlenclosure 'E'
- Copy with attachtnentle.iclosure *N' = No copy OFFICE IMAB- [(i IMAB [G [
NAME MBurgess/mb %t/4 SBagget DATE 10/ J2, /97 10/p /97 m g g g gcl OFFICIAL RECORD COPY h02{0059971023 PDR
,- ,o
' t eaano y- % UNITED STATES
'-s
- j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION wAswiwoTow, o.c. somewooi
]
FAX N0'S 301 - 415 5369 PLEASE CHECK ONE - LOCAL ( ) LONG DISTANCE (XX)
PLEASE TYPE OR USE A BOLD FELT TIP PEN,
( TELECOPIES WILL NOT BE RETURNED )
TO LOCATION
- 1. Mary Burkhart State of Illinois FAX # 217-782-1328 VERIFICATION Please find enclosed the information that we discussed.
4wv NUMBER OF PAGES 1 AND COVER SHEET FROM Michele Buroess PHONE EXT, 301-415-5868 0FFICE NMSS MAIL STOP T-8F5 t _
Gn 4
a.meseg g g+ *, UNITED STATES s* }
t NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.c. 3026401 4
9 . . . . . ,d NOTE TO: Genonc Assessment Panel Fred C. Combs
, Larry W. Camper
' t' Josephine M. Piccone Kevin M. Ramsey FROM: Steven L. Baggett, Section Leader Sealed Source Safety Section Medical, Academic, and a
Commercial Use Safety Branch Division of Industrial and Medical Nuclear Safety, NMSS
SUBJECT:
REQUEST TO EVALUATE GENERIC IMPLICATIONS OF A POSITIVE LEAK TEST RESULT FOR AN AMERSHAM MODEL CDC.CY WELL LOGGING SOURCE USED BY TUCKER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
The following information is provided to the Generic Assessment Panel in response to your request for analysis and follow-up of the letter dated April 29,1997, from Tucker Technologies, Inc. (TTl) to the NRC, regarding positive leak test on an Amersham Model CDC.CY well-logging source. Based on review of the information obtained from Region IV and the State of Illinois, it does not appear that the incident indicate a generic product problem. The apparent reason for the positive leak test result was contamination in the K
source weld material released through wear on the weld. The wear occurred due to an inner O-ring, designed to hold the source firmly in place inside the bull plug, not being installed when Amersham loaded the source into the TTI source holder design. Amersham indicated, to the State of Illinois, that this 0-ring was not installed due to concerns that the radiation would cause deterioration of the O-ring, resulting in corrosion of the source. The State of Illinois plans to conduct a regular QA inspection of Amersham in the near future. During the inspection, the State plans to review Amersham's source loading procedures, including those procedures dealing with situations where the final source loading differs from the initial customer request, or customer submitted drawings. The State will notify the NRC if the Inspection reveals anything that may indicate a generic problem w!th Amersham's source loading procedures. With regard to the apparent cause of the positive leak test, TTI has changed the material used in the inner 0-ring to use a material that has been tested to withstand the effects of radiation. This should close ticket # IMNS 5788.
- v. .
TRANSHI5510H-REPORT-
'. 10.22.1997- 14:54 -
.(
l, ,
391 485 5369 l ,
DATE TIME DUkR110H REMOTE lb MODE PAGES RESUL1 10 22 14: 53 98*93" 217 782 1328 ECM 2 0.k. ,
vr -
y G ye ;
! +
-- y 3 4
, ,3
^
Y i
5 h5 k
/
t "I' a 2 .. a +
>Y Y ',. _
-e
M -- o
?
'? l Frome Michele Burgess
To ARD1.ARP1.JXC2 Te% (g u,@
Subject:
TUCKER I was in the process of closing out the ticket we have on this, and I read the email you sent to our co-op Eric Compton on 9/3. Your email was in response to one of Eric's comments on the Tucker draft inspection report (ref. Section 2.2, paragraph 3, sentence 6, "The source was loaded into a bull. plug that was assembled by screwing two pieces together and spat welded to prevent unserewino."). We had understood until then that the plug had not been tack welded as indicated on the drawings. There is a note to the IL file dated 5/22/97 written by Mary Burkhart of IL that says that, based on her conversion with Mr. Nitz of Tucker, the plug was not welded and that Tucker knew about it and had procedures in place to ensure that the plug did not come unscrewed.
In your 9/3 email to Eric, you said that the bull plug was tack welded by another company after the Amersham loading, and that you had called Tucker to i
confirm this. Could you help me clear up this apparent discrepancy?
Thanks, Michele Qdt - l\
c a W \s k '(
- 34f N' Qj.4scTs/[bb6Y,F$J c
Q h wJTu<)u n W
~6"a t w J
- $ a
,, y Y
g g y e%Q <0 L~ Aqrd #' P 4L wWy.ed k .u.a u e J a- c71 6 N f%Q f.fk
a fna na:%
., y* 1 UNITE] STATES
./
g }
2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON. o.C. 30eeHoot
'/M R
- j #fk September 9,1997 Azm gw g Calvin L Wilson, General Manager Tucker Technologies, Inc.
4 * .A
[ }
12607 East 60th Street South Tulsa, Oklahoma 74146
' L/Wy U ;
SUBJECT:
NRC INSPECTION REPORT 03019278/97 01
Dear Mr. Wilson:
On July 15,1997, the NRC conducted an inspection at Tucker Technologies, Inc.'s (Tucker), Tulse. Oklahoma, f acility. This special, announced inspection was l conducted in response to notification made by Tucker regarding a leaking sealed source l previously utilized in welllogging operations. A telephonic exit briefing was subsequently conducted with you on August 18,1997. The enclosed report presents the scope and results of that inspection.
L As noted in the enclosed report, on April 9,1997, Tucker Technologies, Inc. received notification that a leak test analysis of a 2 Curie, cesium 137 sealed welllogging source had identified removable contamination in excess of the leak test limit. The sealed source manufacturer was notified of the leaking source on April 14,1997, and you subsequently made telephonic notification to the NRC on April 24,1997. NRC Region IV personnel discussed the reporting requirements specified in 10 CFR Part 39.35 with Tucker representatives at that time and a written report documenting this incident was subsequently provided to the NRC by letter dated April 29,1997. NRC staff are also reviewing this incident with the source manufacturer.
During the course of the inspection, NRC personnel reviewed the circumstances relating to the reported leaking sealed source, This review included the selective examination of procedures and representative records, interviews with personnel, and examination of associated equipment utilized with the source. The inspection determined that an appropriate level of oversight had been provided for licensed activities and that activities had been conducted in accordance with applicable NRC regulations and the conditions of your license. _ No violations were identified; therefore, no response to this letter is required.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," a copy of this letter and its enclosure will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room (PDR).
y 0 Y
Tucker Technologies, Inc. 2-
- Should you have any questions concerning this inspection, pleased contact Jeffrey Cruz at (817) 860 8164 or D. Blair Spitzberg, Ph.D., at (817) 860 8191.
Sincerely, s/ Linda Howell for Ross A. Scarano, Director l- Division of Nuclear Materials Safety Docket No.: 030 19278 License No.: 35 19815 01
Enclosure:
NRC Inspection Report 030 19278/97 01-
- cc w/ enclosure:
Oklahoma Radiation Control Program Director N
1 I- '
4 g Tucker Technologies, Inc. 3-l E Mail report to Document Control Desk (DOCDESK) bec w/onclosure to DCD (IE07) bec w/ enclosure distrib. by RIV:
RIV Regional Administrator LLHowell
- DBSpitzberg CLCain FAWenslawski SLBaggett, NMSS (T 8FS)
RLickus, SLO, Region lll t
'JCruz
'NMI&FC\DB
' MIS System
, 'RIV Nuclear Materials File 5th Floor "WilFS Form DOCUMENT NAME: G:\NMIS 0\JC\19278LTR.JXC To receive copy of document. Indicate in box: "C" = Copy wahout enclosures "E" = Copy wth enclosures "N" = No copy RIV:DNMS:NMi&FC/DB NMSS/lMNS/IMAB C:NMI&FC/DB DD:DNMS D:DNMS JCruz:wsw SLE.aggett/Carrico DBSpitzberg LLHowell RAScarano by phone 08/18/97 08/26/97 10/ /97 08/ /97 08/ /97 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
ENCLOSURE U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION IV Docket No.: 030 19278 I License No.: 35 19815 01 Report No.: 030 19278/97-01 Licensee: Tucker Technologies, Inc..
Facility:
Tucker Technologies, Inc. l Tulsa, Oklahoma Location: 12607 East 60th Street South '
l Tulsa, Oklahoma Dates: July 15 through August 18,1997 Inspector: Jeffrey Cruz, Radiation Specialist Accompanied by: Steven L. Baggett, Section Leader Sealed Source Safety Section Eric Compton, Engineering Aide Approved By: D. Blair Spitzberg, Chief Nuclear Material inspection and
__ Fuel Cycle / Decommissioning Branch
Attachment:
Supplemental inspection Information
2 i
' EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
Tucker Technologies, Inc.
NRC Inspection Report 03019278/97-01 l
I This inspectio9 was conducted in response to the licensee's report that a sealed source, previously utilized in well logging operations, had been identified as leaking. The inspection included a review of activities related to use of the sealed source, administrative aspects of the licensee's radiation safety program, and interviews of licensee personnel.
Eauloment and Instrumentation On April 24,1997, Tucker Technologies, Inc. (Tucker) reported t the NRC that a sealed source previously utilized in welllogging operations had been identified as leaking following a routine semi annualleak test. Contarnination surveys of the l.
sealed source storage area and equipment previously used with the leaking source l Identified no radioactive contamination (Section 2). l Within the scope of this inspection, which was limited to activities involving Source l 1634GW,lt was determined that an appropriate level of oversight had been provided for licensed activities end that activities had been conducted in accordance with NRC regulations and the conditions of the license. It appeared that use of the sealed source was consistent with written company procedures and that the source leak did not result from any actions taken, or failures on the part of, Tucker personnel (Section 2).
3-Report Details 1 Organization and Scope of the Licensee Program 187100,83822,87103)
Tucker is authorized under NRC Licenso 3519815 01 to use byproduct material,in the form of sealed sources, in oil and gas welllogging, research and development (R&D) and the calibration of logging tools. However, the primary function of the licensee is as a support f acility for Tucker Energy Services, an international wireline company based in the country of Trinidad. The licensee provided service and support, tool maintenance, and tool research and development for its corporate parent. Tucker rarely performed commercial welllogging operations in the United States, but routinely placed sealed sources in test wells lo:ated at Tucket's f acility in Tulsa, Oklahoma. At the time of this inspection, the licensee employed 16 people at the Tulsa office, and 7 of these individuals routinely worked with radioactive material. Tucker's inventory consisted of approximately 80 sealed sources which included 10 welllogging sources. Approximately 90 percent of the work performed by the licensee with radioactive materialinvolved the use of calibration sources only.
2 Equipment and Instrumentation (87100,83822,87103) 2.1 Insoection Scope This portion of the inspection included interviews with licensee personnel, a review of licensee records, and the enamination of the licensee's welllogging equipment.
2.2 Observations and Findinos On April 9,1997, the Tucker radiation safety officer (RSO) received telephone notification that the analysis of the 6 month leak test of a sealed source owned by Tucker had identified greater than 0.005 microcuries of rernovable activity. The leak test of the 2.0 curie, cesium 137 welllogging source, Model No. CDC.CDY4 (Serial No.1634GW), identified 0.0057 microcuries of removable activity. The RSO immediately performed another wipe of the source to confirm that an error in analysis had not occurred, and secured the source, source handling tool and well logging tool last used with Source 1634GW, from being used or removed by Tucker personnel. Subsequent contamination surveys (wipe tests) of the source handling tool, welllogging tool, and source storoge area did not identify removable contamination.
The second wipe test of the source was analyzed and on April 14,1997, the RSO was informed that only 0.0002 microcuries of removable activity were identified, A representative of the company which had analyzed the wipes informed the RSO that the first count may have been erroneous and that the second wipe could be used as the " official" results. During the same telephone conversation, however, the RSO was also informed that the results could also be the result of the rupture of small
4 bubbles forrned during the welding process at the time the source was manufactured.
Tucker's RSO then contacted the source manufacturer, Amersham Corporation (Amersham), to request that they examine the source to determine if Source 1634GW had actually leaked. The manufacturer agreed and the source was shipped to Amersham on April 15,1997. During a follow up conversation between Tucker's RSO and a representative from Amersham on April 24,1997, the RSO was informed that the source was in fact leaking and would be disposed of by Amersham, in accordance with 10 CFR 39.35, Tucker's RSO contacted the NRC on April 24,1997, to make a verbal report of the leaking source. A written report was received from Tucker on April 30,1997.
On April 25,1997, Tucker received a copy of the report to be issued by Amersham regarding the leaking source. Amersham had concluded that radioactive material i had migrated from the sealed source to the outside of the source carrier (bull plug) and, given the low levels of activity removed during the leak tests, the source had not catastrophically failed. - Amersham determined that the origin of the removable contamination was associated with contamination on the outside of the source inner capsule. The CDC.CY4 sealed source is a double encapsulated design. A possible contributing f actor also discussed in Amersham's report included the possibility of the outer capsule f ailing due to excess movement of the source within the bull plug.
The source was loaded into a bull plug that was assembled by screwing two pieces together. Amersham theorized that during use, the buli plug may have partially unscrewed and this created enough room for the source to move during welllogging operations. The movement of the source could have resulted in undue wear to the weld, resulting in the failure of the outer capsule. Amersham ret.ommended that Tucker revise the design of the bull plug to include spring washers to prevent the movement of the source and that future bull plugs be welded with a full circumferential weld to eliminate the possibility of the assembly becoming unscrewed.-
Af ter reading Amersham's report of the incident, Tucker's RSO telephoned the source manuf acturer to discuss its findings. The RSO asked if two 0 rings that were to be placed in the source holder at the time of source loading were present when Amersham disassembled the bull plug to examine the source. The Amersham representative indicated they were not present. The RSO informed the Amersham representative that the engineering drawings for the bull plug identified two 0 rings that were to be placed in the bull plug to prevent the very movement discussed in the Amersham report. The Amersham representative indicated that he recommended that 0 rings not be installed inside source assemblies because of the possibility of acid formation following the prolonged exposure of some O ring materials to radiation. The RSO stressed that it was Amersham which loaded Source 1634GWinto the source carrier, and that if the 0 rings were not present
, and this resulted in excess source movement,it was due to Amersham's actions.
Tucker's RSO did agree to research other methods of securing the source within the
0 d
5-bull plug but pointed out that older sources, designed to incorporate the O rings, had not leaked.
in a letter dated August 14,1997, the Tucker RSO indicated that Tucker had decided to continue to use 0 rings in the source assembly to maintain the source position. Tucker planned, however, to use a new O ring material that has been tested for use in applications requiring exposure to gamma radiation. The new material will be an ethylene propylene compound which has been tested for use in areas of gamma radiation up to 10' rods. This compound la commonly used in nuclear power plant applications.
On July 15,1997, the NRC conducted a reactive inspection in response to the licensee's report of the leaking source. The inspector reviewed all of the records associated with Sour:01634GW maintained by the licensee. Tucker was able to present the inspector with records documenting the receipt of the source in August 1992, subsequent leak tests and inventories of the source, utilization and maintenance records documenting the use of the source, and transfer records of the source to Amersham for analysis. Utilization records demonstrated that during the 5 years in which Tucker possessed the source, it was utilized in commercial well logging approximately 100 times. The source had been used more of ten in the controlled environment of the licensee's shop area to test tool response during maintenance and R&D procedures. The source was also occasionally used in a test welllocated at Tucker's f acility in Tulsa, Oklahoma. It appeared that this source assembly in particular had been subjected to f ar less severe environments than that typically encountered in welllogging operations.
The inspector discussed the maintenance of the source assembly and welllogging tools with Tucker's General Manager and RSO. Both of the individuals stated that no maintenance beyond that outlined in the company procedures vias performed on the equipment. Maintenance performed on the source assembly consisted of periodic cleaning using a de greasing agent not harmful to the stainless steel used to manuf acture the assembly parts. The inspector's review of equipment maintenance records found no evidence that Tucker personnel had performed any maintenance on the source assembly which may have caused the leak.
2.3 Conclusions Within the scope of the inspection, which was limited to activities involving Snurce 1634GW,it was determined the an appropriate level of oversight had bean provided for licensed activities and that activities had been conducted in accordance with NPC regulations and the conditiont of the license, it appeared that use of the sealed source was consistent with writton company procedures and that the source leak did not result from any actions taken or f ailures on the part of Tucker personnel.
ATTACHMENT PARTIAL LIST OF PERSONS CONTACTED Licensta l
C. Wilson, General Manager R. Nitz, Radiation Safety Officer D. Hunt, Manuf acturing Manager l
l lNSPECTION PROCEDURES USED 87100 Licensed Materials Programs 1 83822 Radiation Protection 87103 Inspection of incidents at Nuclear Materials Facilities
-ITEMS OPENED, CLOSED, AND DISCUSSED Opened None Cloncd None Discussed None LIST OF ACRONYMS USEQ Amersham Amersham Corporat!on CFR Code of Federal R39ulations NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission R&D Research and Development RSO Radiation Safety Officer Tucker Tucker Technologies, Inc.
i