ML20035H150

Forwards Notice of Violation & Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in Amount of $18,750 for Violations Noted in Insp Repts 70-1151/92-04 & 70-1151/93-01.Base Civil Penalty Escalated by 50% Since Violation Identified by NRC

ML20035H150
Person / Time
Site:	Westinghouse
Issue date:	04/23/1993
From:	Ebneter S NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
To:	Fici J WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC COMPANY, DIV OF CBS CORP.
Shared Package
ML20035H151	List: ML20035H150 ML20035H152
References
EA-93-044, EA-93-44, NUDOCS 9305030208
Download: ML20035H150 (6)

Text

>

e APR 2 3 1993 Docket No. 70-1151 License No. SNM-1107 EA 93-044 Westinghouse Electric Corporation ATIN: Mr. J. A. Fici, Manager Columbia Plant Commercial Nuclear Fuel Division Drawer R Columbia, South Carolina 29250 Gentlemen:

i

SUBJECT:

NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND PROPOSED IMPOSITION OF CIVIL PENALTY -

[

$18,750 (NRC INSPECTION REPORT NOS. 70-1151/92-04 AND 70-1151/93-01)

This refers to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Operational Safety Assessment (0SA) conducted on August 17-28, 1992, and the followup inspections conducted on October 28-29, 1992 and February 15-19, 1993, at the Westinghouse Electric Corporation's Commercial Nuclear Fuel Division (CNFD) located in i

Columbia, South Carolina. The OSA assessed overall facility operations and its possible impact on public and employee health and safety.

The report documenting the OSA was sent to you by letter dated November 25, 1992.

You were advised at that time that any potential enforcement issues would be ad-dressed separately. As a result of the followup inspections, violations of t

NRC requirements were identified. An enforcement conference was held on March 17, 1993, in the NRC Region II office to discuss the violations, their cause, and your corrective actions to preclude recurrence. A summary of this conference was sent to you by letter dated March 23, 1993.

The violations are described in the enclosed Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty (Notice). The violation in Part I concerns your failure to perform several required nuclear criticality safety (NCS) analyses.

The first example involved the installation and use of a non-favorable i

geometry (NFG) sump in the diked area of the uranyl nitrate storage tank pad.

-l No NCS analysis had been performed to justify use of the NFG sump and to establish appropriate administrative controls. This issue was identified by the OSA when the team noted that a non-favorable slab thickness could be generated in the sump if one of the 7500 gallon tanks leaked or failed. The l

root cause of this problem was the failure to establish and implement adequate controls to ensure that an appropriate NCS analysis was performed prior to installation of the sump.

The second example in the violation involved the use of numerous NFG centain-ers throughout the chemical area of the plant.

The 0SA team identified that NFG containers, such as 55-gallon drums and other large volume containers,

/

were being used without having had an NCS analysis performed. The root cause I

.)

9305030208 930423 4

PDR ADOCK 07001151

(

C PDR EEo7

Westinghouse Electric Corporation 2

i of this problem was your failure to establish and implement adequate controls to ensure a safety review prior to the introduction of NFS containers in areas of the plant utilizing SNM.

Although there are non-specific administrative controls that, if adhered to, should reduce the likelihood of a criticality accident, the fact that no specific NCS analyses had been performed to analyze the process upset condi-l tions in these instances is of significant concern to the NRC. The develop-ment and documentation of required specific administrative controls is an inherent part of ensuring that a criticality safety incident does not occur and that adequate NCS controls are established and maintained.

In that regard, we recognize that there was a low probability of a nuclear criticali-ty.

Nevertheless, under certain conditions there could have been such an i

accident as a result of using the NFG containers. Therefore, in accordance with the " General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions," (Enforcement Policy) 10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C, this violation with two examples has been categorized at Severity Level III.

i In order to emphasize the importance of ensuring that appropriate NCS analyses are performed to ensure that operational activities are conducted safely and in accordance with requirements, I have been authorized, after consultation with the Director, Office of Enforcement, and the Deputy Executive Director for Nuclear Materials Safety, Safeguards, and Operations Support, to issue the enclosed Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty (Notice) in the amount of $18,750 for the Severity Level III violation. The base civil l

penalty for a Severity Level III violation in $12,500. The escalation and l

mitigation factors in the Enforcement Policy were considered as discussed bel ow.

The base civil penalty was escalated by 50 percent because the violation was identified by the NRC.

Neither escalation nor mitigation was warranted for corrective action. The staff recognizes that once the problem involving the NFG containers was identified, you initiated immediate corrective action to i

resolve this deficiency and develop a comprehensive plan to minimize NFG containers and provide the appropriate nuclear criticality controls on those remaining.

However, the timely completion of that plan was not vigorously pursued. Mitigation of 100 percent was warranted for licensee performance as evidenced by a good enforcement history, the self-initiated response to developing industry issues, and your generally proactive approach to problems.

However, escalation of 100 percent was warranted for your prior opportunity to identify this potential problem. NRC Information Notice No. 89-24, " Nuclear Criticality Safety," discussed potential problems resulting from inadequate administration and application of the double contingency principle in estab-lishing NCS limits and controls, and specifically discussed the use of 55-gallon drums. The base civil penalty was not escalated for the factors of multiple examples or duration, because these were considered at arriving at the severity level of the violation.

Therefore, based on the above, the base civil penalty has been increased by 50 percent.

a l

~

b Westinghouse Electric Corporation 3

APR 23 1993 The violations in Part II of the Notice involved the failure to 1) perform an adequate review of safety-related procedures, 2) follow procedures related i

to ensuring supplemental operating instructions are properly controlled, i

3) include all required information on Regulatory Affairs Review Requests for Change as required by procedure, 4) perform independent verifications of sample results, 5) post and follow criticality signs, 6) follow procedures i

related to ensuring compliance with criticality control parameters and i

instructions, and 7) ensure review and approval of all portions of a test plan prior to its use. The first six violations were categorized at Severity Level IV, while the last one was categorized at Severity Level V.

These violations, all of which share a procedure related commonality, are of concern to the NRC l

because they indicate management inattention to detail relative to ensuring procedural compliance.

t t

You are required to respond to this letter and should follow the instructions specified in the enclosed Notice when preparing your response.

In your response, you should document the specific actions taken and any additional i

actions you plan to prevent recurrence. After reviewing your response to this i

Notice, including your proposed corrective actions and the results of future l

inspections, the NRC will determine whether further NRC enforcement action is f

necessary to ensure compliance with NRC regulatory requirements.

i In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," a cop.v of this letter and its enclosure will be placed in the NRC Public Document.:oom.

I The responses directed by this letter and the enclosed Notice are not subject to the clearance procedures of the Office of Management and Budget as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, Pub. L. No.96-511.

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

Sincerely, j

Original signed by SDEbneter Stewart D. Ebneter Regional Administrator i

Enclosure:

Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty 4

l 1

cc w/ encl:

(see next page) l l

l Westinghouse Electric Corporation 4

i

b cc w/ encl:

Heyward G. Shealy, Chief i

Bureau of Radiological Health South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control 2600 Bull Street Columbia, SC i

'i i

i 5

i Y

4 l

~

Westinghouse Electric Corporation 5

APR 23 1993 DISTRIBUTION:

PDR LPDR SECY CA JTaylor, EDO HThompson, DEDS SEbneter, RII RCunningham, NMSS JLieberman, OE WTroskoski, OE JGoldberg, OGC Enforcement Coordinators RI, RII, RIII, RIV, RV BHayes, O!

EJordan, AEOD DWilliams, OIG EA File Day File Document Control Desk l

1 i

t i

See attached sheet for concurrence l

OE* -

RII*

OE:D*

DEDS*

WTroskoski SEbneter JLieberman HThompson l

4/ /93-4/ /93 4/ /93 4/ /93 I

RI\\

RI RI R

JPSbhr GR njs CFEvans AReyes 4/ql/93 4/;g 3

4/p/93 4/JJ/93 j

r

~

Westinghouse Electric Corporation t

DISTRIBUTIQN:

PDR LPDR SECY CA JTaylor, E00 HThompson, DEDS SEbneter, RII RCunningham, NMSS JLieberman, DE WTroskoski, OE JGoldberg, OGC Enforcement Coordinators RI, RII, RIII.-RIV, RV BHayes, OI EJordan, AE00 DW1111ams, OIG EA F112 Day File Document Control Desk i

OE 4/[

RII4/M;

/

DEDSg[

WTroskeski SEbnetdr' JL1 erman HThor son.

s 4/h793 4////93 4/

93 4/p/93 l

Agp.

I t

I

.i j

.i

!