ML20056C841

Notice of Violation & Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in Amount of $12,500.Noncompliance Noted:Ecn Not Used for Mod of Discharge Tube of Feed Hoppers on All Four Blenders by Installing Interlocks for Direct Control of Discharges

ML20056C841
Person / Time
Site:	Framatome ANP Richland
Issue date:	07/02/1993
From:	NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V)
To:
Shared Package
ML20056C840	List: ML20056C839 ML20056C841
References
70-1257-93-02, 70-1257-93-05, 70-1257-93-2, 70-1257-93-5, EA-93-085, EA-93-85, NUDOCS 9307260007
Download: ML20056C841 (5)

Text

.-

i l

1 NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND PROPOSED IMPOSITION OF civil PENALTY Siemens Power Corporation Docket No.

70-1257 Richland, Washington License No.

SNM-1227 EA 93-085 During an NRC inspection conducted on April 19-22, 1993, two 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 1.

Licensa Condition No. 9 of License No. SNM-1227 authorizes the use of

)

licensed materials in accordance with the statements, representations, j

and (anditions contained in Part I of the licensee's application dated July 1987, and supplements dated November 12, 1987, through January 20, 1

1993.

1 Section 2.5, " Operating Procedures, Standards and Guides," Part I of the l

license application, states in p ' that the licensee conducts its business in accordance with a sy.. 'n of Standard Operating Procedures, Company Standards, and Policy GuiQ s.

A.

Section 2.1, " Scope," of procedure EMF-868, No. 1.13, " Engineering Change Notice (ECN)," requires that ECNs be used for additions or deletions of, or modification to, facilities, services and equipment when work meets one or more of the following criteria:

"Affects the basic principles of operation of the manufacturing process.

Directly involves fissile material.

Affects criticality or radiological safety "

Contrary to the above, between September 11-14, 1992, an ECN was not used for modification of the discharge tube of the feed hoppers on all four blenders by installing interlocks for the direct control of unanticipated discharges of fissile material.

B.

Section 3.0, " Radiological, Industrial and Fire Safety," item 3.6, of procedure EMF-22, No. P66,813, " Preparation of UO, Powder as Press Feed," Revision No. 5, dated September 24, 1992, stated:

" Interlocks are not 'to be bypassed during operation of the powder preparation process."

Contrary to the above, as of February 7,1993, interlocks on the discharge tube on the feed hoppers of the Line 2 and Line 3-blenders had been bypassed (taped to prevent operation) during the 9307260007 930702 PDR ADOCK 07001257?

C PDR

c..

.~

k 9

4 Notice of Violation i operation of the Uv, powder preparation process.

j II.

License Condition No. 9 of License No. SNM-1227 authorizes the use of-licensed materials in accordance with the' statements, representations, i

and conditions contained in Part I of the licensee's application dated July 1987, and supplements dated November 12, 1987, through January 20, 1993.

Section 2.5 " Operating Procedures, Standards and Guides," Part I of the license application, states in part_ that the licensee.

conducts its business in accordance with a system of Standard Operating Procedures, Company Standards, and Policy Guides.

A.

Section 4.5, " CSA [ Criticality Safety Analysis]

Documentation," Chapter 3, " Nuclear Criticality Safety Standards," of the licensee's Safety Manual (EMF-30), states -

in part:

"All limits and controls to assse criticality ' safety s ill be clearly specified."

Appendix 2, " Guidelines for Requesting CSA for Plant Design Changes and the Addition of New Equipment," Chapter 3,

" Nuclear Criticality Safety Standards," of the licensee's Safety Manual '(EMF-30), states in part:

"...As the manufacturing process is improved and refined, equipment in the plant is changed and/or new equipment is added.

Each change or-addition of equipment requires a'new CSA...."

Contrary to the above, between September 11-14, 1992, i

equipment was added to a manufacturing process but a new CSA was not-performed to evaluate the addition.

Specifically, interlocks used as controls to prevent discharges of low enriched U0, from the confines of the process system were

)

added to the discharge tube of the feed hoppers on four blenders in September 1992, and the new controls were not described in a CSA.

i B.

Section 4.1, " Purpose and Scope," Chapter 3, ~ Nuclear-Criticality Safety Standards," of the licensee's Safety Manual-(EMF-30), states:

"The CSA is a study of equipment / operations involving fissile material at normal conditions and at credible accident conditions to determine if the criticality

)

safety criteria ::re satisfied."-

)

~

i Section 4.1.1, " Process Analysis (Criticality Safety Determinations)," Part I of the license application, states a

[h '

r Notice of Violation ]l in part:

"Before any operation with special nuclear material

[SNM) is begun or changed, it is determined that the entire process will be subcritical under both normal and credible abnormal conditions, and within the technical requirements specified in Section 4.2.

Criticality Safety. Analyses are performed on all applicable processes...."

Section 4.2.1, " Double Contingency Policy," Part' I of the' license application, states:

" Process and equipment designs.and operating procedures incorporate sufficient factors'of. safety to require at least two unlikely, independent, and concurrent errors, accidents, equipment malfunctions,.

or changes in process conditions-before a criticality accident is possible."

Section 2.0, " Philosophy and Criteria," Chapter 3, " Nuclear Criticality Safety Standards," of the licensee's Safety l

Manual (EMF-30), states that "No single accident, error of equipment, or process malfunction shall allow criticality to occur."

Section 4.4, " Safety Evaluation," CMpter 3, " Nuclear Criticality Safety Standards," of the licensee's Safety Manual (EMF-30), paragraph 4.4.E.3, " Moderation Limits,"

states:

"The potential of d

tal moderation due to water / oil leaks, crays, "arflows, condensation, sinhoning, etc., mu.' b -refully evaluated and controls implemented as a,e opriate."

Section 4.5, "CSA Documentation," Chapter 3, " Nuclear Criticality Safety Standards," of the licensee's Safety ~

Manual (EMF-30), states in part:

"All' limits and controls-to assure criticality safety-shall be clearly specified."

Contrary to the above,.as of February 12, 1993, the licensee had not determined that the conversion Line 2 unfavorable geometry. U0, powder preparation systems (PPSs).

would be subcritical under both normal and credible abnormal conditions-and had not carefully evaluated the potential of -

accidental moderation due to water leaks, sprays, overflows and siphoning.

Specifically, the licensee did not maintain an evaluation with the technical basis to demonstrate that 1

l s

____.___.____.___1_.__

_______..:.___j

.~

5 Notice of Violation

• i liquid moderating systems within the same room and near--

f conversion Line 2 PPSs did not pose a criticality concern.

1 As a consequence, the controls necessary to. preclude =the intrusion of moderating liquids into the PPSs from. breaks'in nearby moderating liquid lines were not clearly specified.

l These violations represent a Severity Level III problem (Supplement VI).

Civil Penalty'- $12,500 Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, Siemens Power Corporation (Licensee) is hereby required to submit a written statement or explanation to:

the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, within 30 days of the date of this Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition i

of Civil Penalty (Notice). This reply should be clearly marked as a " Reply to a Notice of Violation" and should include for each alleged violation:

(1) admission or denial of the alleged violation, (2) the reasons for the violation if admitted, and if denied, the reasons why, (3) the corrective steps that have been taken and the results achieved, (4) the corrective steps i

that will be taken to avoid further violations, and (5) the date when full i

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..

i be given to extending the response time for good cause shown. Under the l

authority of Section 182 of the Act, 42 U.S.C.'2232, this response shall be submitted under oath or affirmation.

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 s

the United States in the amount of the civil penalty proposed above, 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 i

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 protesting 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 violations listed in this Notice, in whole or in part, (2); demonstrate ~ extenuating i

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 l

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 -

l Section VI.B.2 of 10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C, 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.,

+

e

-+A.-

vn a

.,e.-e

,.. ~

p Notice of_ Violation citing page and paragraph numbers) to avoid repetition. The attention of the Licensee is directed to the other provisions of 10 CFR 2.205, -egarding the procedure for imposing a civil. penalty.

Upon failure to pay any civil penalty due which subsequently has been determined 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 coll;cted by civil action pursuant' to Section 234c of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 2282(c).

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:

Document Control Desk, Washington, D.C. 20555 with a copy to the Regional Administrator, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region V.

Dated at Walnut Creek, California this 2" day of July 1993

,