ML20198L549
| ML20198L549 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 08/26/1997 |
| From: | Compton E NRC |
| To: | Steven Baggett NRC |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20198L519 | List: |
| References | |
| SSD, NUDOCS 9710270072 | |
| Download: ML20198L549 (10) | |
Text
es 4 Frome Eric Compton To alb (M R'it b:tyy tt Dates 8/26/97 9:28am subject Tucker The draft of the inspection notice appears to be basically complete. However, this notice states that the, " Source .. . was assembled by screwing two pieces together and spot welded to prevent unscrewing" (section 2.2 , paragraph 31.
But' this is not the case, because Amersham did not spot weld the pieces of the bull plug during assembly. Tucker was aware of this problem all along, and reportedly took steps to prevent unscrewing. Also, in addition to the source being used at the fucker facility in Tulsa, there is no mention of the source being used at Victoria, TX (see 2.2, par 6). These are the only two concerns that I have now.
l Lastly, I would like to get a copy of the final notice.
Eric CC: mlb5 MichdC {buvgttJ) 4 y
/
9h027o072971023 p
SSD RC ppg q
J
.a k
Calvin L. Wilson, General Manager Tucker Technologies, Inc.
12607 East 60th Street South Tulsa, Oklahoma 74146
SUBJECT:
NRC INSPECTION REPORT 03019278/97 01
Dear Mr. Wilson:
On July 15,1997, the NRC conducted in inspection at Tucker Technologies, Inc. (Tucker), Tulsa, Oklahoma, facility. This special, announced inspection was conducted in response to notification made by Tucker regarding ileaking sealed source 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.
As noted in the enclosed report, 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. The NRC staff also discussed this incident with the sealed sourec manufacturer, and that review is ongoing.
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 associated equipment utilized with the source. The inspection determined that an appropriate level of oversight had been provided for I! censed 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),
Should you have any questions concerning this inspection, pleased corn ct Jeffrey Cruz at (817) 860-8164 or D. Blair Spitzberg, Ph.D., at (817) 860-8191.
Sincerely,
__ l
i eg 9
Ross A. Scarano, Director Division of Nuclear Materials Safety I
Docket No.: 030 19278 l License No.: 35 19815 01 l
Enclosure:
1 NRC Inspection Report 030 19278/97 01-cc w/ enclosure:
Oklahoma Radiation Control . rogram Director k
i a
b E Mail report to Document Control Desk (DOCDESK) :
1 bec w/ enclosure to DCD (IE07) bec w/ enclosure distrib. by RIV:
RIV Regional Administrator LLHowell
'DBSpitzberg CLCain ,
FAWenslawski SLBaggett, NMSS (T 8F5)
RLickus, SLO, Region lll
'JCruz
'NMi&FC\DB
' MIS System
- RIV Nuclear Materials File - 5th Floor
'W/lFS Form ,
t DOCUMENT NAME: G:\NMIS.0\JC\19278LTR.JXC
- To receive copy of document. Indicaw in box
- "c" = ccay wnhout enclosures "s" = Copy with enclosures "N" = No copy l RIV:DNMS:NMI&FC/DB C:NMi&FC/DB DD:DNMS D:DNMS' JCruz:wsw DBSpitzberg LLHowell RAScarano
< Date > < Date > < Date > 08/ /9'A OFFICIAL RECORD COPY l
l
ENCLOSURE U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION IV Docket No.: 030 19278 License No.: 35 19815 01 Report No.: 030 19278/97 01 Licensee: Tucker Technologies, Inc. (Tucker)
Facility: 12607 East 60th Street South Tulsa, Oklahoma Location: 12607 East 60th Street South Tulsa, Oklahoma Dates: July 15 through August 18,1997 Inspector: Jeffrey Cruz, Radiation Specialist Approved By: D. Blair Spitzberg, Chief ,
Nuclear Materia! Inspection and Fuel Cycle / Decommissioning Branch
Attachment:
Supplemental Ir.spection Inf ormation i
W
u EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
Tucker Technologies, Inc.
NRC Inspection Report 03019278/97 01 This inspection 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 .eview of the activities relating to the use of the sealed source, administrative aspects of the licensee's radiation safety program, and interviews of licensee personnel.
Eguloment and Instrumentation
.. On April 24,1997, Tucker reported to the NRC that a sea'sd source previously utilized in well-logging operations had been identified as leaking following a routine l semi-annualleak test. Contamination surveys of the sealed source storage area and i
equipment previously used with the leaking source identified no radioactive con'. amination.
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 the license, it appeared that use of the sealed l l source was consistent with written company procedures and that the source leak oid not result from any actions taken or f ailures on the part of Tucker personnel.
Report Details 1 Organization and Scope of the Licensee Program (87100,83822,87103)
Tucker is authorized under NRC License 35-19815-01 for the use of byproduct material, in the form of sealed sources, in oil and gas well-logging, research and development (R&D) and the calibration of logging tools. However, the primary function of the licensee is as a support facility for Tucker Energy Services, an international wireline company based in the country of Trinidad. The licenses provides service and support, tool maintenance, and tool research and development for its corporate parent. Tucker rarely performs commercial well logging operations in the United States, but routinely places sealed sources in test wells located at Tucker's f acility in Tulsa, Oklahoma. The licensee currently employs 16 people at the Tulsa office, and 7 of these individuals routinely working with radior.ctive l material. Tucker's current inventory consists of approximately 80 sealed sources l
which includes 10 welllogging sources. Approximately 90 percent of the work performed by the licensee with radioactive material, involves the use of calibration sources only.
2 Equipment and Instrumentation (87100,83822,87103) 2.1 inspection Scoce This portion of the inspection included interviews with licensee personnel, a review of licensee records, and the examination of the licensee's well logging equipment.
2.2 Observations and Findinas 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 removable activity. The leak test of the 2.0 curie, cesium-137 well-logging 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 toollast used with Source 1634GW, from being used or removed by Tucker personnel. Subsequent contamination surveys of the source handling tool, well-logging tool, and scurce storage area did not identify removable contamination.
The second wipe test 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 bubbles formed during the welding process at the time of source manuf acture.
Tucker's RSO then contacted the source manufacturer, Amersham Corporation (Amersham) to determine if they would be willing to examine the source to reach a definitive conclusion on the condition of the sealed source. 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 vsas 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 had migrated from the sealed souice to the outside of the sourcs 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 inner capsule, The CDC.CY4 sealed source is a double encapsulated design. A possibla q contributing factor also discussed in Amersham's report included the possibility of d af outer capsule failing due to excess movement of the source within the bull plug.
f,h,[/
6 i ? -+ The source was loaded into a bull plug that was assembled by scr together and spot welded to prevent unscrewm0. Amersham theorized that during p use, the bull plug may have partially unscrewed and this created enough room for the source to move during well-logging operations. The movement of the source
/y could result in undue wear to the weld and result in the failure of the outer capsule, Amersham recommended that Tucker revise the bull plug to include spring washers
/y . to prevent the movement of the source and that future bull plugs be welded with a p[? full circumferential weld to eliminate the possibility of the assembly becoming unscrewed.
After reading Amersham's report of the incident, Tucker's RSO telephoned the source manufacturer to discuss its findings. The RSO asked if two 0-rings that were to be placed in the source holder at the time of sc,urce 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 O-rings that were to be placed in the bull plug tr , vent the very movement discussed in the Amersham report. The Amersham r esentative indicated that he recommended that O-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 1634GW into the source carrier, and that if the O-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 vthin the bull plug, but pointed out that older sources of the same design, to include O-rings, had not leaked.
In a letter dated August 14,1997, the Tucker RSO indicated that Tucker had decided to continue to use O-rings in the source assembly to maintain the source position. Tucker will, however, 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 107 rads. This compound is commonly used in nuclear power plant
s .
applications.
On July 15,1997, the NRC conducted a reactive inspection in response to the licensee's report that a sealed source, previously utilized in well-logging operations, had been identified as leaking. The inspector reviewed all of the records associated with Source 1634GW 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 timei;. The source had been used more often 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 l'
1 j ff' h at Tucker's f acility in Tulsa, Oklahoma, it appeared that this source essembly in particular had been subjected to far less severe environments than that typically i
7j encountered in well-logging operations.
JP <
The inspector conducted discussions with Tucker's General Manager and RSO concerning the maintenance of the source assembly and well-logging tools. Both of the individuals stated that no maintenance beyond that outlined in the company procedures was performed on the equipment. The maintenance performed on the source assembly consisted of nothing more than an occasional cleaning using a de greasing agent not harmful to the stainless steel used to manufacture 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 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 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.
1 l
ATTACHMENT PARTIAL LIST OF PERSONS CONTACTED :
Licensee C. Wilson, General Manager R. Nitz, Radiation Safety Officer D. Hunt, Manufacturing Manager INSPECTION PROCEDURES USED 87100 Licensed Materials Programs 83822 Radiation Protection 87103lnspection of incidents at Nuclear Materials Facilities i
ITEMS OPENED, CLOSED, AND DISCUSSQ 1
-Opened '
None j
Closed None I
Discussed None i
LIST OF ACRONYMS US@
.i Amersham Amersham Corporation
-CFR Code of Federal Regulations NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission R&D . Research and Development RSO Radiation Safety Officer TuckerTucker Technologies, Inc.
_.