ML20211M722

From kanterella
Revision as of 13:10, 6 August 2021 by StriderTol (talk | contribs) (StriderTol Bot insert)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Partially Withheld Insp Rept 70-1113/85-17 on 851007-10 & 1126 (Ref 10CFR2.790(d) & 73.21).No Violations or Deviations Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Technical Review of Allegations
ML20211M722
Person / Time
Site: 07001113
Issue date: 02/25/1986
From: Bates J, Mcalpine E, Todd G
NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
To:
Shared Package
ML20211M455 List:
References
FOIA-86-704 70-1113-85-17, 70-1113-85-17-0, NUDOCS 8612180030
Download: ML20211M722 (12)
v • d • e


Text

M

[<, ...,*g. NUCLEAR REGuttTORY COMMt$510N e #

c.E cic,, ,,

e C 01 MARIETT A sTCE ET.N W i

3 o a

! ATLANT A.ctoncl A 30323

'%..','..**' MAR 041986 Report No. 70-1113/85-17 Oc:ket No. 70-1113 License No. SNM-1097 Licensee: Gene-a' Electri: Company Wileir:-. ,n, NC 28401 .

Date of Insrecti- Octocer 7-10 aned.overce- 26, 1995 ,

Inscectors: /~/ -/ [ 4 b G /& Tocc[Saf g itor ,

Ca'te Signec l y

. ., D. lu . ,' ~, / . (

9.' W. Bates, Saf eguards Chemist Date Sigeec

/

Acreovec by: P h 2/2.5/#86 E. J. M:AlpTne, Cnief Mate-ial C0r.t-o; anc Date Signed )

Acc:untability Section, hu: lear Materials Sa'ety anc Sa'egua es Bran:b, Ohision of Ra::'uton Safety anc Safeguarcs SUMW.ARY 5:00E: This sce:ial irsce:,1cn entailed 63 ins:e:::--ao.es at the site during n c -r.a 1 enc of'-sni f t hour s ano ir the ;egicna; cf:e ir the a ea of tecnnical es'e cf a7:egat or.s. i RE50_TS: Ne vi:'at'ons or ceviatiers were 4:ent<fie: es-ing the insce: tion.

8612180030 E M PDR hhNE 8 --704

.i m -

} M'

g s-F* _. - .- _;

Cepy - if o f.. - P 4p es Li y:ge, REPORT DETAILS me Doomem se ros to to reproduced w)t.ieat speca fio approval of IE:!!

Re:cet No. 70-1113/85'-17

. Key Persons Contacted "W. W. McMahon, Manager, Quality Assurance "C. M. Vaughan, Manager, Regulatory Compliance

  • L. A. Sheely, Manager, Fuel Quality "T. P. Winslow, Manager, Chemet Laboratory
  • R. L. Torros, Manager, Radiation Protection R. I. Parnell, Laboratory Supervisor TFe inspectors also interviewed several other licensee employees.
2. Exit Interview **

The inspection scope and findings were sum.Tarized on October 10, 1985, with those persons indicated in paragraph I aDove. Ine following issues were discussed in detail - technical inspections of al'egations involving plant cperations. The licensee acknowledged the inspection findings and took no exceptions.

t

3. Tecnnical Review of Allegations Involving Plant C:erations
a. Allegation:

?nat the licensee Charced

. ecause tne method was not asec croper y Oy the techni ians ar.c tne lice >ee aid not want NRC -to find this out.

Discussion and Findings:

The licensee has routi m ed a Followi s eoaration, the resu ng project was undertaken by the 11 in March o at t e encou ent of the NRC to alter the so that it would be ba ~

sed. The addition o ght basis rather than on a v ume basis is considered an upgrade in the method since it

~

eliminates volume errors due to reading certified glassware and changes in temperature. The method, No. 1 21.5, Rev. 5 ated August 25, 1982 allows the use of either The revised methoc was p aced in service n May of 1984.

/

, r summut 1 2 The allegation wa ia The licensee cnose to the addition of basis, rather than on basis, which provi es for improvements in their present ana ytical capabilities.

No violations or deviations were identified.

b. Allegation:

i The alleger stated that on or about February 20, 1984, required calibrations were not done within the required 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> and samples were released using the old minimum uranium counts and the data that was released was invalid.

Discussion and Findings:

An examination was made of the gam #a spectroscopy counting, e period February 18- 84 and included a review of the It was cetermined from an examination o e data that beginning at 00:09 on February 18, 1984 to 06:34 on February 19, 1984, production samples were analyzed and rei do different occasions, each followed by a verification o samp stancards as required by Station Control Plan 400, Revision 3, dated l December 19, 1983. A further examination of tne data revealed that n  !

Februa ry 20, 1984 at 13:53, a verification was performeo and th l high standarc failed. No production samples had been run or r eased prior to the verification failur As a re between 14:47 na 17:20 on Fearvary 20 1984, were performed and documente running proouction samples as required by the procedure. Further examination of tne data through Februa ry 22, 1984 indicated the system (analy:er No. 2) was functioning properly and rifications were performed o this period.

Tne printe were examined l to verify ates, times, and events as described. t should be noted  !

that analytical results may be released prior to the rederivation of  ;

minimum uranium count limits. The inspectors found no evidence during  !

the period of review that data that was released was invalid. l Contrary to statements by the alleger, there were no notes in the log book to indicate that calibrations were not performed or that samples  ;

were released without a minimum uranium count.

This allegation was not substantiated.

No violations or deviations were identified. l

c. Allegation: i That the that were leaking from the industria in (

the labo atory were affecting the balances that were use to w gh -

material.

l

3 y

Discussion and Findings:

A test was run by the lic ch 15, 1984, and ould no determined by him that th was leaking. The used at GE are designed su at operation can not be ectec un ess the door is closed. The licensee has been requested by NRC to perform a rigorous test of the subject balance using a series of standards and l typical sample quantities which are to be measured during operation and nonoperation of the microwave. The results of this test will be documented by the licensee for' subsequent review by NRC during a routine inspection (85-17-01). l This allegation was not resolved during this inspection.

No violations or deviations were identified. )

d. Allegation: ..

That inaccurate, inconsistent and out of specification results were i produced by isotopic reruns.

Discussion and Findings:

An inquiry was conducted into an alleged incident relating to inaccurate, inconsistent and out of specification results produced by isotopic reruns.

A special self initiated study was performed by the licensee in April 1985 to determine what benefits were being gained from the isotopic rerun program and covered the period February - March 1985. Of the t al number of samples run for isotopic enrichme n h eriod, percent were requested for a rerun analysis. of the rerun analyses confirmed the original values.

The rerun analyses for the remaining were remeasured as specified in procedu o. -

, Rev. 4, ated July 18, 1984.

The procedure states that samples received in the laboratory are to be identified by sample and container number from which the sample was withdrawn. A sample aliquot is to be prepared from each sample for isotopic analysis. If the results from this analysis exceeds established limits, the process control release function is notified is is needed. If a rerun is requested, are to be withdrawn from the sample and analyze he average of the s to be reported for e a quot. The difference ween th rerun aliquots is to be compared to the limits for expected nces at the reported enric ment. If the difference between th rerun aliquots is less tnar. or equal to the limits, the average value of the l

1

4 7

aliquots is to be reported us or crocess control pu . If the (if' alicuots is g* eater than the limit, a performed. If no outlier is found, 1 average of t is to be e orted.

If an outlier is found, the average o tne remaining are to be reported.

In summary, the isotopic remeasurements were performed to verify the original values and to determine the best possible value in instances where the original value was suspect. The licensee's investigation of the minor differences between the original analytical results and the values previously assigned to the items revealed the possibility of discrepancies in traceability of the original samples. Anomilies were attributed by the licensee to sample identification cross over in the lab or during production sampling and not to inaccurate or inconsistent specification results. The licensee's rerun program is a cuality control tool to detect differences 'and their cause when sample analyses overstate or understate desired enrichment blends.

This allegation was not substantiated.

No violations or deviations were identified.

e. Allegation:

An alleger stated that a named laboratory s.cervisor had two floDpy I

ciscs for the computer and that these discs may be used to cesignate cifferent standards for various lab tests. Adcitionally, recorcs were not being maintained when stancarcs we-e run anc cetectors were Changed.

Discussion and Findings:

'The inspectors interviewed the named laboratory supervisor on October 7, 1985. The supervisor denied any knowledge of the use of floppy discs to alter standards identification or values and- e

?

stated that thi nf rmation is stored in tn which is n ily ac ssi e r-

r. He/she'iurantr stated tha the event of aut cha s would read licensee's written functional stat ment on LMCS access controls.

With respect to records not being maintained when standards were run i

and detectors were changed, the inspectors verified that detector l

changes were documented and that standards were run following each detector change according to the licensee's procedure.

This allegation was not substantiated.

m l.

I 5

l4

f. Allegation: .

An alleger stated that he/she had knowledge that another individual in the laboratory was told by a third person that falsified data could be produced in the isotopic analyzers.

Discussion and Findings:

The inspectors interviewed the named third person on October 8,1985.

The individual recalled the described conversation that took place with a co-worker approximately six months earlier. The individual explained that the conversation took place under the auspices of general instruction when he/she was asked by the coworker how the isotopic analyzer computer interfaces worked in the event that the coworker sought employement in that area of the laboratory at some future time.

The individual stated that he/she felt tricked by the coworker into l explaining some of the systems pitfalls in the ev n h an unauthorized person obtained someone else's He/she further stated that the subject of falsification only came up as a precaution to the coworker as w someone change sample vial numbers in the system with an and therefore that rotection was very ortant. The indi idual stated that

/sh ad never falsified any data nor had any knowledge of any other d employee's falsi.fying data.

The allegation was partially substantiated in that the reported conversation actually took place. However, it could not be proved that the conversation was a deliberate instruction on how to falsify data nor could it be proved that any falsification had taken place.

g. Allegation:

d incident was r rted to the NRC involving the discovery by of w r in th bottom of a BU-7 s i ping container that was pa wit and shipped to frcm the General Electric, Wilmington, NC fuel facility.

Discussion and Findings:

The inspectors interviewed several quality control (QC) personnel and l the Fuel Chemical QC Manager on October 8-9, 1985. These interviews disclosed that the a ed incident involving water in a BU-7 shipping container sent t ad taken place as described.

A review of the correspondence between and General Electric and General Electric's investigation of the 1 matter did not positively identify the source of the water inclusion )

into the shipping container. '

General Electric's response to this incident was to assume a worst case scenarfo; that the potential existed that c General Electric QC

_ ___ R 6

e inspector may have overlooked the water in the BU-7 which would have been in violation of the licensee's QCII Procedure No. 2.8.2.3, ,

Rev. 28. Based on this assumption, the licensee implemented ective  ;

action within six days of the notification of the problem b This corrective action includ ovidin ional instructio to QC inspectors and by placin in the bottoms of each BU-7 during refurbishing of the vesse prior to packaging. Proced ill be modified to instruct the inspe'ctc.s on the removal of the thus ensuring a close and thorou n tion of each drum bottom for moisture or damage. Further, the are constructed large enough to preclude successful packaging wTthout their removal.

The inspectors determined that the licensee's actions to prevent future occurrences of this problem at the General Electric site was prompt and appropriate.

The allegation as described was substantiated. In accordance with the NRC enforcement policy and because the violation was identified by the licensee, would have been categorized as a Severity Level IV violation, the licensee's corrective action was deemed appropriate and timely, and could not have been prevented by the licensee's corrective action for a previous violation, no notice of v' "ition is issued.

h. Allegation:

The NRC received an allegation from an individual that stated that he/she had overheard a conversation between two named employees discussing penciling in (falsifying) isotopic values, and that their supervisor was aware of their actions.

Discussion and Findings:

The inspectors attempted to interview one of the named employees related to the subject allegation on October 9,1985. The individual elected not to be interviewed on the grounds that unless the identity of his accuser be disclosed to him he would neither confirm nor deny any knowledge of the alleged incident. The inspectors terminated the attempted interview at that time due to confidentiality constraints.

The inspectors interviewed the second named employee related to the subject allegation on November 26, 1985, by telephone. The delay of this interview was as a result of the unavailability of the individual when on scheduled absence or rotating shift work. The individual denied any knowledge of the alleged incident.

Through other inquiries made by the inspectors regarding the named supervisor, it was determined that he/she terminated employment with General Electric in 1973, and that the whereabouts of the individual is not known at this time.

7 4

No technical information was developed to substantiate this allegation.

4. Inspector Followup Item As reported in Report No. 70-1113/84-15, dated July 11, 1985, involving out-of control occurrences for enrichment analyzers, the inspectors re evaluated the data points for each measurement system and are as follows.

1 The program for monitoring and controlling the performance of enrichment analyzer measurements were examined during the inspection and covered the pcriod February 1983 through October 1985. A summary of the standards data is presented in Tables I through III, and includes the total number of analyzer atanalyzed and the number of out of-control conditions for each standards t enrichments. These data were analyzed by the inspector and j measurements ases were identified where the observed number of outside range with 95% confidence. These the 0.05 limit differed from the theoretical cases,are presented in Table IV. No such cases were observed r to th limit. With respect to th cases in Table IV, in f the cases, the licens '

more conservative (na ower than requ red. In the other imits missed the theoretical range by only one (e.g. , O observe vs. a casesi 1-8 eo-retical range), and $ missed the range by 3. On balance, the data supports the hypothesis that the licensee is accurately calculating control chart limits for the enrichment analyzers. There is an indication, however, that the licensee required to do should update these limits more frequently than currently so by HRC.

l l

l

TABLE I

() FEBRUARY 1983 - CE EMBER 1983 ANALYZER NO. 11 l Total No. Exceectng No. Exceee3n'

. Enri'***ts Yeasurement, 95*. Limit 99 9*. Limis' l ,

1 0 5 0 l

i 2 0 3 0

5 0 l 0 l

ANALYZER No. 3g l S 0

, 5 0 5 0 i

3 0 5 0 S 0 i

l ANALYZER no. 33 l I

6 2 f

6 0  !

i' 4 0 l 4 0 l 6 0 l l' 6 l

i ANALYZER No. 34 1 0 4 0 7 0 I' 1 0 4 1 6 0 i I

! l J

I l,

W-w-=_--__ - aw-- m m ' w e-=m_.sva-w v wm'~

B TABLE !!

4

's JANUARY 1934 - DECEMBER 1984 i

ANALYZER NO. 11 Total No. Exceeding Nc. Exceeding

. Errichments Measurements 95*. Limi t 99.9'. Limit l

3 0 1 0 i

3 0 f 3 0 i l

13 2 ANALYZER NO. 12 l I

1

8 0

.. l 1 O 1 0 1

2 0 19 0 i

)

{ , ANALYZER NO. 13 1

1 0 10 0 1 0 4 1 21 0 ANALYZER NO. 14 5 0 l 6 0 0 0 3 0 l . 18 1 l

i i

1 i

I

TABLE III t

JANUARY 1985 - OCTOBER 1985 j

ANALYZER NO. 11 Total No. Exceeding No. Exceeding

  • . Ereichmeats Meas; ements 95*. Limit 99.9*. Limit l 5 0
4 1 l

4 0

' 14 1 3 1

ANALYZER k'O. 12 i

I 5 0 6 1 l 4

5 1 l l . 11 0 '

, 6 0 l l

l ANALYZER NO. 13 6 0 4 0 l 5 0 i

16 1 1

7 0 l

ANALYZER NO. 14 l 4 0

. 5 1 1 8 3 0 l

7 0 4 0 l i I

l l '

0 TAB CASES WERE THE NUMBER OF MEASUREMENTS 1

FALLING OUTSIDE THE 95?. CONFIDENCE LIMITS DIFFERS FROM THEORETICALLY EXPECTED Aralyzer Number Outside Omcer S ear 95.. Limits Enrichment Observed Theoreticala 11 " 1983* " 0 1-8 11 " 1984 } 4 34 11 1985 " " 14 12 1984 3-13 19 4 35 13 " 1984 j 13 1984 1 2-10 21 5-15

13 1985 " " 16 3-13 14 1984 18 4-15 i

At 95?. Confidence

" Licensea's lim'ts appea- to be established at greater than 95*. confidence

"" Feoruary - De: ember

Jae ary - Octcoer i

i I

f po tse UesiftDSTAfts W llE y

,8

, #,, NUCLE AR GEGULATORY COMMIS$10N g d f.t GIc N 11 Ts

  • 101 M ARit T T A STRt ti.h ys.

ATL ANTA.GtoRGI A 30323

..Y.** APR 101986 General Electric Company ATTN: Mr. Eugene A. Lees, General Manager Nuclear Fuel and Component Manufacturing P. O. Box 780 Wilmington, NC 28402 Gentlemen:

SUEUECT: REPORT NO. 70-1113/86-06 On March 17 - 21, 1936, NRC inspected activities authorized by NRC License No. SNM-1097 for your Wilmington facility. At the conclusion of the inspection, the findings were discussed with those members of your staff identified in the enclosed inspection report.

Areas examined during the inspection are identified in the report. Within these areas, the inspection consisted of selective examinations of procedures and representative records, interviews with personnel, and observation of activities in progress.

Within the scope of the inspection, no violations or deviations were identified.

In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790(d) and 10 CFR 73.21, safeguards activities and security measures are exempt from public disclosure; therefore, the enclosures to this letter, with the exception of the report cover page which presents a nonexempt summary, will not be placed in NRC's Public Document Room.

Should you have any questions concerning this letter, please contact us.

Sincerely, Yd p)dennethP.Barr, Chief Nuclear Materials Safety and Safegtards Branch Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards

Enclosure:

Inspection Report No. 70-1113/86-06 (Exempt from Disclosure) cc w/ enc 1: (See page 2) j d%%1Wf x

General Electric Company 2 APR101986 cc w/ enc 1:

1. Preston Winslow, Manager Licensing and Nuclear Materials Management e

l l

{

l

. - - ~ - - - - _ _ _ . _ _ . . _ , _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ __ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20211M722&oldid=3275252"