ML20127B162

Insp Rept 70-1257/92-09 on 921207-11.No Violations or Deviations Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Fire Protection & Followup on Items of Noncompliance,Inspector Followup Items & NRC Info Notices

ML20127B162
Person / Time
Site:	Framatome ANP Richland
Issue date:	12/23/1992
From:	Hooker C, Reese J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V)
To:
Shared Package
ML20127B161	List: ML20127B157 ML20127B162
References
70-1257-92-09, 70-1257-92-9, IEIN-92-034, IEIN-92-037, IEIN-92-058, IEIN-92-062, IEIN-92-072, IEIN-92-075, IEIN-92-076, IEIN-92-34, IEIN-92-37, IEIN-92-58, IEIN-92-62, IEIN-92-72, IEIN-92-75, IEIN-92-76, NUDOCS 9301120188
Download: ML20127B162 (8)

Text

..

i U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION V Report No. 70-1257/92-09 Docket No. 70-1257 License No. SNM-1227 Licensee: Siemens Power Corporation 2101 Horn Rapids Road Richland, Washington 99352-0130 Facility Name: Siemens Power Corporation Inspection at: Richland, Washington Inspection Conducted: December 7-11, 1992 Inspector: M M / M J/fE C. A. Hooker, Fu 1 ,a lities Inspector Date Signed Approved by: / MA h /233fq2, QAr[ Reese, Chief / Date Signed Facivties Radiological Protection Branch Summary: ,

Areas Inscected: This was a routine unannounced inspection of fire protection and followup on items of noncompliance, inspector followup items, and NRC Information Notices. Inspection procedures 30703, 88055, 92701, and 92702 were addressed.

Results: In the areas inspected, the licensee's performance appeared adequate and their programs appeared capable of accomplishing their safety objectives.

The licensee's association the local fire department and pre-fire planning program were noted as program strengths (Sections 2.1 and 2.2). Housekeeping needs improvement (Section 2.4).

9301120188 921223 PDR AI.,0CK 07001257 C PDR

y DETAILS

1. Persons Contacted 1.1 Siemens Epwer Corporation ISP_C.1

• B. N. Femreite, Plant Manager,

• R. E. Vaughan, Manager, Safety, Security and Licensing

• R. L. Feuerbacher, Manager, Plant Operations

• H. K. Valentine, Manager, Manufacturing Engineering '

• L. J. Maas, Manager, Regulatory Compliance

• J. B. Edgar, Staff Engineer, Licensing W. E. Stavig, Staff Engineer J. H. Phillips, General Supervisor, Chemical Operations T. C. Probasco, Safety Supervisor J. J. Payne, Chemical Shift Supervisor C. D. Manning, Criticality Safety Specialist 1.2 NE

• F. A. Wenslawski, Deputy Director, Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards

• K. Brewer, Radiation Specialist

• Denotes those attending the exit meeting.on December 11,.1992.

In addition to the individuals noted above, the inspector met and held ,

discussions with other members of the licensee's staff.

2.0 Fire Protection The licensee's fire protection program was reviewed against the guidance delineated in the final form Technical Position (TP), " Fire Protection for Fuel Cycle Facilities," published in the Federal Register (57 FR 35607-13) dated August 10, 1992, and the National Fire _ Protection Association codes.

• The TP was first published in draft form on March 21, 1989, in Federal Register (54 FR 11590-98). In addition to _the publication of the_ final TP.in the Federal Register, the NRC issued _a letter dated October 6, 1992, to selected licansee's explaining the staffs position related to the TP which was also included as an enclos'ure -to the letter. The

-letter delineated that.the information contained in the TP reflects the staffs views concerning good industry practice. Ilowever,-its provisions-do not constitute requirements.

SPC's current license application, under timely renewal, contains limited commitments relative to fire protection. License commitments primarily involve monthly inspections of housekeeping practices and fire-extinguisher maintenance. Trt.ining of personnel on fire protection is delineated.in the licensee's Emergency Plan. The licen:,ee's license s--

h -. -.w w an<- e e

d 2

renewal application submitted by letter dated August 26, 1992, did not contain any additional commitments relative to fire protection.

The inspection included facility tours and an examination of selected -  !

equipment and installed fire protection equipment, maintenance and inspection records, licensee procedures and inspections, and inspection..

reports of American Nuclear Insurers (ANI) and the Richland Fire -

Department.

2.1 Procedures Procedure ANF-P65,533, " Fire Protection Program," Chapter 1, " Industrial Safety Standards," of the licensee's Safety Manual _ (EMF-30) provides the basic standards and guides for the licensee's fire protection program.

-This procedure provided a description of (1) the licensee's affiliation.

with the City of Richland Fire Department (CRFD), (2) the water supply system available for fighting fires, (3) commitments to certain building codes and standards, (4) the fire detection and alarm systems, (5):

available onsite fin sighting equipment, (6) handling and storage of combustible and flamable materials (solids, liquids and gases), and (7) the licensee's monthly inspection programs.-

Chapter 1 of EMF-30 also included the following additional procedures related to fire protection:

• ANF-P65, 519, " Flammable and Combustible liquids Storage and Handling."

• ANF-P65,508, " Testing Plant Safety Systems "

• ANF-P65,509, " Fire Protection Equipment and Services."

Although the procedures did not appear to be comprehensive, they provided_the basic elements of an adequate fire protection program.

2.2 Pre-Fire Plans (PFPs) and T-ainina

.The inspector noted that PFPs were prepared for each building. The PFPs included updates-describing areas designated as water-use restricted'and water exclusion for moderation controlled areas. During facility tours, the t' 'pector noted that water exclusion areas were posted with an industry recognizable sign that depicted no use of water for fire fighting. The licensee was-also-in the process -of having its PFPs

, revised by a contracted firm. The revised PFPs will. include more details such as location' of water shutoff valves, main electrical power disconnet.ts, fire extinguishers, manual pull station alarmst sprinkled buildings, and a narrative and photos of each building.- The licensee expected this revision to be completed within about three~ months.

Previous inspection reports have described the licensee's good working relationship with the City of Richland Fire Department. The fire department maintains a copy of the licensee's PFPs and routinely visits b

, _ _ . . , . . - , - . . -t.

1 3

the facility for famil'Trization and occasionally participates in the licensee's training.

The licensee's facility is~ located within the Richland city limits. The

, city has the primary responsibility for fighting fires at the licensee's '

facility. The nearest fire station is located about five miles from the facility. Following notification of a fire, the fire department estimates that they can be at the licensee's facility within about six minutes. This has been verified during actual responses and licensee emergency drills. The inspector noted that the Licensee's Plant Emergency Response Team (PERT) is provided hands-on training in the use of fire extinguishers and incipient fire fighting techniques. In addition to the training of PERT personnel, the licensee also provides hands-on training to all site personnel who are interested in such training. A review of the licensee's training records disclosed no concerns relative to fire protection training.

The inspector reviewed records of semiannual unannounced fire drills conducted during the past 18 months. Critiques after each drill appeared to be effective in identifying program weaknesses and corrective actions appeared appropriate. The licensee plans to increase fire drills to three times per year in 1993.

2.3 Equipment Testino and Maintenance '

The licensee utilizes its commercially supplied computerized maintenance management program for scheduling and maintaining records ,f testing and maintenance of their fire protection equipment and systems. Records of selected items (fire detection and suppression systems, and manual fire alarm pull stations) were examined. Fire alarms actuated by the fire detection, suppression systems, and manual pull stations sound locally, at a main annunciator panel in the Security Building, and the CRFD.

Testing of these systems included verification of the onsite and CRFD systems.

2.4 Inspections The inspector reviewed reports of semiannual ANI inspections and annual inspections by the CRFD that had been performed during the past two years. ANI had recommended that the licensee' insta'l a sprinkler system in a newly constructed heated warehouse for the storage of low enriched uranyl nitrate (UNH) solution in 55-gallon polyethylene drums. ANI concluded that the polyethylene drums constituted a considerable-combustible loading and recommended a sprinkler system be installed. -

The licensee's response to ANI regarding this matter was that they had no plans to install such a system. The UNH Warehouse is a pre-i engineered, noncombustible structure (metal building), with fiberglass batt insulation. Additionally, the UNH stored in the drums is not combustible. This facility was also equipped with a fire detection and alarm system which was connected to- the main annunciator panel and the CRFD.

4 L , , .- - - . , . .

a

4 During a tour of the UNH Warehouse on the evening of December 8, 1992, the inspector observed a large cardboard box containing unused rags being stored under the main _ electrical supply panel for this building.

Early on the morning of December 9,1992, this storage of combustible material was brought to the attention of the Safety Supervisor. The inspector noted that the box and rags had not been relocated as of the morning of December 11, 1992. This matter was also discussed at the exit interview.

On December 7, 1992, the inspector accompanied members of the Health and Safety Council (H&SC) during their December 1992 scheduled safety walk-down inspection of outlying buildings (selected non-processing areas).

The licensee's inspection team included the Vice President, Engineering, Safety Supervisor, and Manager, Components & Support Machining. The inspection included tours of the Machine Shop, Flow Test Facility, air compressor and deminerializer water supply facility, and the Ammonium Recovery facility. The inspector noted that the licensee's inspection focused on general fire safety and other potential industrial safety hazards, and general housekeeping practices. The licensee's inspection appeared to be effective in identifying deficiencies which were recorded for corrective action to be taken by the person responsible for the respective area. The results of the licensee's inspections are also included in the licensee's monthly H&SC monthly meeting reports.

During facility tours of the operating and processing areas, the inspector observed that housekeeping practices were not consistent throughout the licensee's facilities. Housekeeping practices in areas associated with fuel pellet pressing through fuel bundle assembly appeared to be several grades above that observed in some of the chemical conversion and waste processing areas. Combustible items such as rags, used plastic gloves, and plastic bags were observed lying on '[

the floor and on top equipment. The inspector also noted that, -

generally, there were nearby containers for the disposal of such items.

These housekeeping observations were also discussed with plant management at the exit interview.

The licensee's performance appeared adequate and their fire protection program appeared adequate to the accomplishment of its safety objectives. The licensee's rapport with the CRFD, maintenance and inspection program for fire protection systems and equipment, and their pre-fire planning were considered as program strengths. Housekeeping practices in some of the waste processing and chemical conversion ares needs improvement. No violations or deviations were identified. ,

3.0 Followuo - 1.icensee Action on previous inspection Findinos 3.1 Cited Violations (92702)

The inspector verified the corrective actions taken to correct the violation and those to prevent recurrence of the following violations as stated in the licensee's timely response to each matter:

l

5 70-1257/92-02-01 (Closed) - Failure to Conduct Monthly Inspections of the Environmental Procram Based on a review of licensee inspection reports for the past six months, the inspector verified that the Health Physics component was performing monthly inspections of the environmental program as required by Section 2.6.5, Part 1 of the license application.

70-1257/92-04-03 (Closed) - Failure to Conduct Facility Contamination Surveys Based on a review of survey records for the past six months, the inspector verified that facility contamination surveys were being conducted as required by Section 3.2.6, Part 1 of the license application and licensee procedures. The inspector noted that the Supervisor, Radiological Safety had instituted an new monthly audit program to assure surveys were being performed as required.

70-1257/92-04-04 (Closed) - Failure to Instruct Temocrary Workers on lite Emeraency Alarm _1 The inspector verified that the 1Nensee had effectively implemented a new program that provided all unescorted new employees, temporary workers, and visitors adequate instruction related to potential site hazards and site emergency alarms. These instructions were_being provided via a video. These individuals also signed a form as to their understanding of the instructions.

3.2 Non-Cited Violations (92702) 70-1257/92-04-05 (Closed) - Failure to Provide Adeauate Instructions and Procedures for th,g Use of Emoty Waste Drums The inspector verified that the licensee had revised their. procedures for labeling, segregation and use of empty drums that previously contained radioactive waste. In addition, the licensee had effectively implemented a new form that controlled the use of empty containers.

During facility tours, the inspector observed that segregation and labeling of empty drums were in accordance wi.th established procedures.

3.2 Inspector Followun Items (92701) 70-1257/91-04-01 (Closed)'- Status of The Criticality Specialist's Workload -

Previously, the individual in this single staffed position was being assigned work for other company groups that resulted in significant time being devoted to non-licensed activities. To alleviate this problem, the licensee _ contracted an outside firm to perform the work for the other company groups. -In addition, at of September 1992, the.added-an additional Criticality Specialist to its staff. Both individuals are only assigned work related to licensed activities. The licensee was

t 6

also in the process of acquiring another Criticality Specialist to augment their staff.

29-12.51HJ-04-04 (Closed) - Revise the Safety M_anual to Indicate Criticality ManaaemenLA_pp_r_Disals from Biannual _ to Biennial The inspector verified that Chapter Three, " Criticality Safety Standards," of the licensee's Safety Manual (EMF-30) had been revised to delineate that management appraisals of the criticality safety program be performed biennial (every two years), consistent with established practice.

70-1257/91-04-07 (Closed} - Formal Documentation of Criticality Safety

.Trainina Reguirements The inspector noted that the licensee had effectively documented an upgraded criticality safety training program in Section 8.0, Chapter 3.0 of their Safety Manual (EMF-30). The documentation provided the depth of training neuded for new employee indoctrination, operations and support personnel.

70-1257/91-04-08 (Closed) - Im.plementation of Enhanced Criticality Safgiv Trainina Prqaram Based on discussions with the Criticality Safety Specialist who provides the training, a review of revised lesson plans, and observations made while observing a training class, the inspector had no further questions regarding this matter.

URC Information flptices (ins)

The inspector verified that the licensee had received, reviewed or were in the process of reviewing Ins 92-34, 92-37, 92-58, 92-62, 92-72, 92-75, and 92-76.

The inspector also noted that the licensee had instituted a more formalized site distribution and feedback system for ins. Previously, l such a system did not exist. The inspector noted from the licensee's records that, as appropriate, the licensee had taken action to preclude similar problems identified at other facilities, including power reactors.

4.0 JnspecticL D it_fectina (33ZDJ1 The inspector met wit with the licensee representatives, denoted in Section I, at the conclusion of the inspection on December 11, 1992.

The scope and finding of the inspection were summarized.

The licensee was informed that no apparent violation or deviations were identified.

Prior to the exit meeting on December 11, 1992,. the Region V Deputy

!l l -,_

7 Director, Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards and the inspector met with the Plant Manager and other management personnel to discuss the details of the licensee's letter dated November 20, 1992, in response to the NRC's Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty dated October 23, 1992. During this meeting, the Plant Manager agreed to augment their response witi.in two weeks with a supplement detailing the licensee's Criticality Safety Analysis Update Program.

'- - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ _ . __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , _ _ __ _ _ _