ML20035H152
| ML20035H152 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Westinghouse |
| Issue date: | 04/23/1993 |
| From: | NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20035H151 | List: |
| References | |
| EA-93-044, EA-93-44, NUDOCS 9305030210 | |
| Download: ML20035H152 (8) | |
Text
'
9 NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND PROPOSED IMPOSITION OF CIVIL PENALTY Westinghouse Electric Corporation Docket No. 70-1151 Commercial Nuclear Fuel Division License No. SNM-1107 Columbia, South Carolina EA 93-044 During NRC inspections conducted on August 17-28, 1992, and February 15-19, 1993, violations of NRC requirements were identified.
In accordance with the
" General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions," 10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission proposes to impose a civil penalty pursuant to Section 234 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (Act), 42 U.S.C. 2282, and 10 CFR 2.205. The particular violations and associated civil penalty are set forth below:
I.
Violation Assessed A Civil Penalty Condition 9 of Special Nuclear Material (SNM) License Number 1107 (SNM-1107) requires that licensed material be used in accordance with the statements, representations, and conditions contained in Chapters 2, 3, and 4 of the license application dated March 26, 1984, and supplements thereto.
Chapter 2, Minimum Specifications and Capabilities, Section 2.3.1.10 of the license application states that where practicable, reliance will be placed on equipment design in which dimensions are limited rather than on administrative controls for nuclear criticality safety. When non-favorable geometry is used, Westinghouse shall justify the proposed use of non-favorable geometry and establish appropriate administrative controls. After justifying the need for non-favorable geometry equip-ment, the analysis must take into consideration identified contributing causes of criticality accidents, demonstrate that such causes will be subject to administrative controls, and demonstrate compliance with the double contingency principle. Contributing causes to be addressed will include process upsets.
Contrary to the above:
1.
As of August 28, 1992, the licensee did not meet the minimum speci-fications and capabilities specified in the license application.
Specifically, the licensee did not justify use of a non-favorable geometry sump, which was added to the diked or curbed area under-neath uranyl nitrate storage tanks at some point in time during or after installation / construction of the tanks. No nuclear criti-cality safety analysis was performed to consider the cont'ributing causes of criticality accidents, establish appropriate administra-l tive controls, and demonstrate compliance with the double contin-t j
gency principle. As a consequence, appropriate administrative controls were not established.
2.
Attachment RA-301-1, " Floor Storage Plan," of Procedure RA-301, j
" Nuclear Criticality Control Criteria," Revision 6, dated i
i
$bb
I January 10, 1990, authorized the use of non-favorable geometry containers (55-gallon drums) without requiring justifications for the containers nor a criticality analyses of the various applications of the containers which considered the contributing causes of process upsets.
This is a Severity Level III violation (Supplement VI).
i Civil Penalty - $18,750.
j II. Violations Not Assessed A Civil Penalty l
Condition 9 of License SNM-1107 requires that licensed material be used in accordance with statements, representations, and conditions contained l
in Chapters 2, 3, and 4 of the license application dated March 26, 1984, and supplements thereto.
j A.
Chapter 3, Section 3.1.2.3 (11) of the license application requires the Radiation Protection Component to review and approve all site l
procedures specifically related to radiation protection, nuclear i
criticality safety, emergency planning and SNM safeguards.
Contrary to the above, as of August 28, 1992, the Radiation Protec-tion Component failed to perform an adequate review of safety-i related procedure R0-06-003, " Ambient Environmental Air Monitoring for Radioactivity," Revision 5, dated July 9, 1992. The review was inadequate in that the procedure revision eliminated the self-absorption factor in the calculations for alpha activity, which 3
could result in lower then actual (non-conservative) radioactive measurements of routine environmental air samples.
J This is a Severity Level IV violation (Supplement VI).
i B.
Chapter 2, Section 2.6 of the license application states that special nuclear material (SNM) processing shall be conducted in accordance with approved written procedures or instructions.
j Procedure TA-005, "S.0.I. and P.I.F. Preparation and Distribution,"
Revision 3, dated February 27, 1992, establishes the procedure for the preparation, approval and distribution of Supplementary Operat-ing Instructions (501) and S01 acknowledgement sheets.
501s estab-j lish or modify written approved procedures or instructions for SNM processing. Section 6, requires, in part, that S01s and S0I Ac-knowledgement Sheets be distributed and maintained in their respec-tive areas. Section 7 requires, in part, that an expiration date be designated for each S0I, and the date of issuance is entered on each S0I and S01 Acknowledgement Sheet.
Form TAF 005-8, Supplementary Operating Instructions Acknowledgement Sheet," Part C., " Supervisor's Instructions," Part I states that the supervisor is to complete the S01 acknowledgement process within 1
I five (5) working days which includes having all the operators read and sign the S0I with the supervisor signing last to indicate that all operators' names are on the sheet.
1 Contrary to the above, during the Operational Safety Assessment (0SA) conducted during the period from August 17 through 28, 1992, i
the licensee failed to control the preparation and distribution of 501s and S0I Acknowledgement Sheets, as evidenced by the following:
1 1.
S01s C-142, C-143, and C-144, contained in the ammonium diura-l nte (ADU) conversion area control room S0I log, had no date of 3
issuance nor expiration.
Several of the supervisor acknowl-edgement sheets were missing from the respective area logbook, despite the fact the S0I had not expired.
j 2.
S01 Acknowledgement Sheets that did not receive a complete supervisor sign off within the five days included S0I I-087, S0I I-123, and S0I IDR-0100.
3.
S0I PEL-340 and the S0I logbook for the indirect dry route (IDR) area FA-2 could not be located.
In addition, 501 PEL-358, which had an expiration date of August 21, 1992, had not been removed by August 24, 1992.
{
1 This is a Severity Level IV violation (Supplement VI).
l C.
Chapter 2, Section 2.3.1.1 of the license application states that written procedures describing general nuclear criticality control requirements shall be maintained in the Regulatory Affairs Procedures Manual by the Radiation Protection Component. This section also states that operations shall be conducted in accordance with these procedures to ensure compli-ance with NRC regulations and license conditions.
Procedure RA-104, " Regulatory Affairs Review Requests," Revision 6, dated March 3, 1992, requires, in part, that the person originating the requested change (s) complete Section 1 of Form RA-104-1 by providing sufficient information including accurate red-lined drawings or sketches to adequately describe the change (s); that Regulatory Engineering review the proposed changes, determine applicable radiological. and nuclear criticality safety requirements (which generally entails performing l
criticality safety analyses) and complete RA-104-1,Section II by signing i
the form. Once the form, RA-104-1, is completed, the originator is to implement the required radiological and nuclear criticality safety controls established by Regulatory Engineering and have existing working l
drawings revised and/or new drawings prepared and submitted to Regulatory l
Engineering for final review and approval.
Procedure RA-104 then i
requires Regulatory Engineering to sign the appropriate drawings to ensure implementation of all required control criteria.
l T
i I
i
r.
Contrary to this requirement, a review of selected Regulatory Affairs Review Requests for Change (facility change requests) by the OSA team i
during the period August 17-28, 1992, and during the inspection the week of February 15-19, 1993, indicated that some of the change requests did not contain all the information required by procedure in that:
1.
Concerning the nuclear safety analysis for RA-104-1-754:
a.
the form did not indicate who performed the analysis or who did the second party review, i.e., there were no signatures, b.
there were no equipment drawings or literature of the equipment involved and no updated drawings, and c.
the accident or upset conditions used in the nuclear criticali-ty safety analysis were not identified.
2.
Concerning the nuclear safety analysis for RA-104-1-783:
a.
the analysis did not indicate who performed the original analysis, i.e., there was no signature, and b.
there were no drawings of equipment or layout drawings accompa-nying the package.
This is a Severity Level IV violation (Supplement VI).
D.
Chapter 2, Section 2.2.15.3 of the license application requires supervi-sor or chief operator verification of Uranium-235 concentration and free acid content in adjustment tanks prior to transfer.
Contrary to the above, during the OSA conducted during the period from August 17-28, 1992, the OSA team determined that the licensee failed to perform an adequate verification of Uranium-235 concentration and free
'7 acid content in adjustment tanks prior to transfer.
Specifically, the supervisor or chief operator did not independently verify that the operators received and recorded the correct sample results for the i
contents of tanks about to be transferred.
Rather, the supervisors and chief operators relied on the operators obtaining the correct sample results via telephone.
j This is a Severity Level IV violation (Supplement VI).
E.
Chapter 2, Section 2.3.1.1 of the license application requires, in part, that operations shall be conducted in accordance with the written procedures maintained in the Regulatory Affairs Procedures Manual which describe general nuclear criticality control requirements.
Procedure RA-302, " Criticality Signs," Revision 5, dated April 21, 1989, requires, in part, th-t criticality signs identifying applicable
criticality control parameters and instructions shall be conspicuously posted, maintained and complied with, in areas or on equipment where SNM is present as required by Regulatory Engineering.
Contrary to this procedure, during the OSA conducted during the period from August 17-28, 1992, the licensee failed to follow this procedure in that:
1.
The Rod Reclamation Hood (Reject Rod Unloading Station) was in use but no criticality sign was posted.
2.
The criticality sign located on the tray elevator in the conversion dissolver area was not conspicuously posted in the front of the work station and was not available for reference by workers when required.
3.
The following posted criticality signs were not complied with:
a.
Several 9.5 inch diameter polypacks containing 3.8 percent enriched uranium "hardscrap" were stored on a rack in the Rotary Blender Area which was limited, according to the posted sign, to 3.7 percent enriched "hardscrap",
b.
The twelve inch spacing between SNM, required by postings, on storage racks and in an array of drums containing SNM standards was not maintained, and c.
A storage rack in the Rod Loading Area contained trays of fuel pellets with a posting limiting the tray to a slab thickness of 4 inches.
Several instances were noted where the 4 inch slab thickness was exceeded.
This is a Severity level IV violation (Supplement VI).
F.
Chapter 2, Section 2.3.1.1 of the license application requires, in part, that operations shall be conducted in accordance with the written procedures maintained in the Regulatory Affairs Procedures Manual which describe general nuclear criticality control requirements.
Procedure RA-301, " Nuclear Criticality Control Criteria," Revision 6, dated January 10, 1990, requires, in part, that a minimum of one foot spacing shall be maintained between counters, racks, carts and equipment containing SNM under moderation control, and that greater separation distances may be required in areas containing interacting SNM_which have-
" surface density" areas [ yellow exclusion areas] assigned to them.
l l
l~
Procedure RA-302, " Criticality Signs," Revision 5, dated April 21, 1989, requires, in part, that criticality signs identifying applicable criti-cality control parameters and instructions shall be conspicuously posted l
on equipment or in areas where SNM is present as required by Regulatory i
Engineering.
Contrary to the above, during the OSA conducted during the period from August 17-28, 1992, a work table, used for the repair and cleaning of l
pumps and other pieces of equipment and located adjacent to a vertical safe geometry tank in the ADU conversion area, was situated over a portion of the yellow exclusion area for this tank and no restrictions or guidance was given for placement of SNM on the portion of the table that was above the exclusion area nor upon placing SNM on the shelf of the table located about six inches above the exclusion area.
i i
This is a Severity Level IV violation (Supplement VI).
j G.
Chapter 2, Section 2.3.1.1 of the license application requires, in part, that operations shall be conducted in accordance with the written i
procedures maintained in the Regulatory Affairs Procedures Manual which describe general nuclear criticality control requirements.
l RA-104, " Regulatory Affairs Review Requests," Revision 6., dated March 3, 1992, a procedure which describes general nuclear criticality safety requirements for proposed additions or modifications, requires in part i
that Regulatory Engineering complete Section II of RA-104-1.
Review Request RA-104-1-782, "IDR Vaporization Process, Liquid Level Probe / Gravity Drain,"Section II, required, in part, that the test 3
engineer document the initial interlock verification using test data i
sheets in procedure RA-109, " Safety Significant Interlock Test Documenta-tion."
Contrary to the above, on September 2, 1992, Review Request RA-104-1-782 i
was signed off as complete although, as of February 19, 1993, procedure RA-109, " Safety Significant Interlock Test Documentation," had not been approved and issued.
This is a Severity Level V violation (Supplement VI).
Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, Westinghouse Electric Corporation, Commercial Nuclear Fuel Division (Licensee) is hereby required to submit a written statement or explanation to the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S.
j 4
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, within 30 days of the date of this Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty (Notice). This reply j
should be clearly marked as a " Reply to a Notice of Violation" and should i
include for each alleged violation:
(1) admission or denial of the alleged i
violation, (2) the reasons for the violation if admitted, and if denied, the i
reasons why, (3) the corrective steps that have been taken and the results achieved, (4) the corrective steps that will be taken to avoid further
violations, and (5) the date when full compliance will be achieved.
If an adequate reply is not received within the time specified in this Notice, an order or a Demand for Information may be issued as to why the license should not be modified, suspended, or revoked or why such other action as may be proper should not be taken.
Consideration may be given to extending the response time for good cause shown.
Under the authority of Section 182 of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 2232, this response shall be submitted under oath or affirma-tion.
Within the same time as provided for the response required above under 10 CFR 2.201, the Licensee may pay the civil penalty by letter addressed to the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, with a check, draft, money order, or electronic transfer payable to the Treasurer of the United States in the amount of the civil penalty proposed above, or the l
cumulative amount of the civil penalties if more than one civil penalty is proposed, or may protest imposition of the civil penalty in whole or in part, by a written answer addressed to the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Should the Licensee fail to answer within the time specified, an order imposing the civil penalty will be issued.
Should the Licensee elect to file an answer in accordance with 10 CFR 2.205 protest-ing the civil penalty, in whole or in part, such answer should be clearly marked as an " Answer to a Notice of Violation" and may:
(1) deny the viola-tion listed in this Notice in whole or in part, (2) denonstrate extenuating circumstances, (3) show error in this Notice, or (4) show other reasons why the penalty should not be imposed.
In addition to protesting the civil penalty in whole or in part, such answer may request remission or mitigation of the penalty.
In requesting mitigation of the proposed penalty, the factors addressed in Section VI.B.2 of 10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C (57 FR 5791, February 18,1992),
should be addressed. Any written answer in accordance with 10 CFR 2.205 should be set forth separately from the statement or explanation in reply pursuant to 10 CFR 2.201, but may incorporate parts of the 10 CFR 2.201 reply by specific reference (e.g., citing page and paragraph numbers) to avoid repetition. The attention of the Licensee is directed to the other provisions of 10 CFR 2.205 regarding the procedure for imposing a civil penalty.
Upon failure to pay any civil penalty due which subsequently has been deter-mined in accordance with the applicable provisions of 10 CFR 2.205, this matter may be referred to the Attorney General, and the penalty, unless compromised, remitted, or mitigated, may be collected by civil action pursuant to Section 234c of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 2282c.
The response noted above (Reply to Notice of Violation, letter with payment of civil penalty, and Answer to a Notice of Violation) should be addressed to:
Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ATTN.
s l
I i
r 1
t l
]
1 l
Document Control Desk, Washington, D.C. 20555 with a copy to the Regional i
Administrator, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region II, Atlanta, j
- Georgia, j
i Dated at Atlanta, Georgia j
thisA37 day of April 1993 i) h t
i a
1 t
+
?
i I
i l
t i
i t
.[
i i
i 1
1