ML20058H932
| ML20058H932 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Framatome ANP Richland |
| Issue date: | 11/22/1993 |
| From: | Hooker C, Reese J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20058H930 | List: |
| References | |
| 70-1257-93-12, IEIN-93-019, IEIN-93-05, IEIN-93-050, IEIN-93-060, IEIN-93-077, IEIN-93-080, IEIN-93-19, IEIN-93-5, IEIN-93-50, IEIN-93-60, IEIN-93-77, IEIN-93-80, NUDOCS 9312130281 | |
| Download: ML20058H932 (7) | |
Text
.
I a
l i
l U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION V i
Report No. 70-1257/93-12 Docket No. 70-1257 License No. SNM-1227 i
Licensee:
Siemens Power Corporation l
2101 Horn Rapids Road l
Richland, Washington 99352-0130 Facility Name: Siemens Power Corporation l
Inspection at: Richland, Washington f
Inspection Conducted:
November 1-5, 1993 I
Inspector:
[M
///h2/9f C.
H66ker, F a 'lities Inspector Date Signed
~
Approved by:
MM.
_M NfMk3 Dar (jH. Rees'e, Chif( l Protection Branch Date Signed Facilities Radiologica Summary:
t Areas Inspected: This was a routine unannounced inspection of fire protection and followup on items of noncompliance, inspector followup items, and NRC 7
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.
k i
i l
9312130;M31 931124 PLR ADOCK 07001257 C
DETAILS l.0 Persons Contacted Siemens Power Corporation (SPC)
- B. N. Femreite, Plant Manager,
- R. E. Vaughan, Manager, Safety, Security and Licensing
- M. K. Valentine, Manager, Manufacturing Engineering
- L. J. Maas, Manager, Regulatory Compliance
- J. B. Edgar, Staff Engineer, Licensing
- J. W. Helton, Manager, Plant Engineering
- B. F. Bently, Manager, Plant Operations
- T. C. Probasco, Supervisor, Safety J. H. Phillips, General Supervisor, Chemical Operations E. L. Foster, Supervisor, Radiological Safety C. D. Manning, Criticality Safety Specialist R. K. Burklin. Health Physicist
- Denotes those attending the exit interview on November 5, 1993.
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 (88055)
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 information contained in the TP reflects the staffs views concerning good industry practice..However, 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.
Training of personnel on fire protection is delineated in the licensee's Emergency Plan.
The inspection included facility tours and an examination of selected maintenance / surveillance testing of fire detection and fire protection equipment, licensee procedures and inspections, reports of American Nuclear Insurers (ANI) Fire /All Risk inspections, reports of the Richland Fire Department inspections, and abnormal events related to fire protection. The inspector also reviewed and discussed ANI's reports detailing comments and recommendations from their review of proposed construction plans provided by the licensee for upcoming facility modifications.
~
t 2
'j a.
Procedures
+
Procedure ANF-P65,533, " Fire Protection Program," Chapter 1,
" Industrial Safety Standards," of the licensee's Safety Manual l
(EMF-30) provides the basic standards and guides for the
.i 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 fire fighting equipment, (6) handling and storage i
of combustible and flammable materials (solids, liquids and gases), and (7) the licensee's monthly inspection programs.
Chapter 1 of EMF-30 also included specific procedures for flammable and combustible liquids storage and handling, testing of plant safety systems, fire protection equipment and services.
The inspector determined that the licensee's procedures provided I
the basic elements of an adequate fire protection program.
b.
Pre-Emeraency Plan (PEP)
.l The inspector noted that in June 1993, the licensee issued a new improved PEP that covered each building located on the site. The i
PEP is the licensee's pre-fire plan that included colored i
photographs of the exterior of each building and described its purpose, occupancy, construction, the presents or non-presents of radioactive / hazardous materials, fire. detection and protection i
equipment, areas designated as water-use restricted and water exclusion for moderation controlled areas, and floor plans of each building.
PEP site plan drawings depicted the locations storage tanks and their contents, the site water system, water shutoff valves, and fire hydrants.
The inspector noted the licensee continues to maintain a good working relationship with the City of Richland Fire Department, which has the primary responsibility for fighting fires at the-4 3
licensee's facility. The fire department maintains a copy of the licensee's PEP and routinely visits the facility for familiarization.
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 in less than ten minutes. This has been verified during actual responses and licensee emergency drills.
c.
Trainina The inspector observed that fire protection instructions were conveniently posted throughout the licensee's facilities.
These instructions included general fire safety practices in the work 4
area, what to do in case of fire, emergency telephone numbers, and i
a u
a a
d i n
4,ns-3 the proper use of fire extinguishers.
The Licensee's Plant Emergency Response Team (PERT). is provided hands-on training in the use of fire extinguishers and incipient fire fighting techniques. The inspector observed the licensee's annual PERT hand-on fire extinguisher training that was being conducted during this inspection. The training involved PERT members extinguishing an open gasoline sump fire with dry chemical fire extinguishers in the licensee's fire training yard.
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. Baseo on the observations during the hand-on fire extinguisher training and the review of the licensee's training records, the inspector did not identify any concerns relative to fire protection training.
The inspector reviewed records of semiannual unannounced fire drills conducted during the past 12 months.
Critiques were held after each drill to identify deficiencies and develop corrective actions to correct them.
d.
Eauipment Testino and Maintenance The licensee utilizes its commercially supplied computerized maintenance management program for scheduling and maintaining records of testing and preventative maintenance (PM) of their fire t
protection equipment and systems. Records of selected systems (hydrogen monitoring, fire detection and suppression systems, 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. The inspector noted that PM and testing of these systems were consistent with licensee procedures and/or industry standards.
The inspector also noted that the licensee was making arrangements to replace its current fire alarm panel with a new improved computerized interactive system to supervise the licensee's 40 fire zones. Most of the existing buildings are associated with i
one fire zone. However, the U0, Building is covered by five fire zones, Office Building 8 is covered by two fire zones, and the main warehouse is covered by three fire zones.
Currently, the fire alarm system only provides the zone where the alarm originated and not its exact location. The new system will have the capability of providing the exact location where the alarm originated. The licensee will be incorporating this new feature in new buildings as they are built. Although the licensee has no immediate plans to integrate this feature in existing facilities, it will be done by priority sometime in the future.
t
l s
4 l
e.-
Inspections and Reviews The review of reports of semiannual ANI inspections and annual inspections by the CRFD for the past year did not disclose any items of concern. The inspector also reviewed reports of ANI's review of construction plans for a new licensee warehouse and-two story analytical laboratory expansion. The inspector noted that the licensee had adequately responded to ANI's comments and recommendations and revised their construction plans accordingly.
The inspector's review of these construction plans and revisions i
did not identify any deficiencies related to fire protection.
Reports of licensee Health and Safety Council (H&SC) monthly i
safety walk-down inspections that focus on general fire safety, l
other potential industrial safety hazards, and general housekeeping practices were reviewed. These reports, which are included in the H&SC monthly meeting reports, indicated that the l
licensee's inspections were effective in identifying and correcting deficiencies germane to the focus of the inspections.
I During facility tours of the operating and processing areas, the inspector observed that housekeeping practices relative to controlling combustible materials have improved since the last inspection of this area.
j l
f.
Events r
The inspector reviewed and discussed, with cognizant licensee personnel, the circumstances surrounding an abnormal event t
involving a rapid pressurization of the Line 1 calciner.
At approximately 7:15 on October 27, 1993, a rapid pressurization of the Line I calciner occurred when an operator performed a rod-out_ (clearing material buildup) of the feed hopper offgas junction box at the inlet to the calciner. The licensee suspected that the ammonium diuranate seal in the feed hopper to the calciner was lost and provided a path for air to inter the hot calciner off-gas
'l piping. The air supplied a source of oxygen that mixed with hydrogen in the hot offgas piping where rapid oxidation (combustion) occurred and pressurized the calciner. The operators I
in the Line 1 area heard a 1oud noise, and observed that-the feed i
hopper inspection lid and one two inspection doors to the hot oil l
l dryer had flown open.
l The ADU seal was immediately reestablished and no other causes were identified nor was there any evidence of equipment damage.
l There were no personnel injuries and the licensee's radiological surveys indicated.that no uranium had escaped the calciner. The i
licensee also determined that there was no impact on criticality j
safety and that the incident was not reportable to the NRC under the provisions of NRC Bulletin 91-01 or requirements specified in i
?
t t
t
. =
s 5
The licensee initiated an investigation of the to determine the root cause of the event and corrective actions to prevent recurrence. The inspector did have any concerns relative to the licensee's evaluation that the event was not reportable to the NRC. However, the licensee's final root cause evaluation and corrective actions to prevent recurrence will be examined in a subsequent inspection and is considered as an inspector followup i
item (70-1257/93-12-01).
t The licensee's fire protection program appeared adequate to accomplish its safety objectives.
No violations or deviations were identified.
l 3.0 Followup - Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findinos i
a.
Cited Violations (92702) 70-1257/93-03-02 (Closed) - Failure to Establish a Ouality Control (OC) Proaram as Specified in 10 CFR 20.311(d)
Based on a review of Revision 2 of Section 4.0, _ " low-Level Waste i
Disposal," Chapter 5, " Radioactive Material Shipping Standard," of
[
the licensee's Safety Manual (EMF-30), the inspector verified that the licensee had established an adequate QC program, including management evaluation of audits assure compliance with 10 CFR 61.55, " Waste Classification," and 10 CFR 61.56, Waste Classification." The inspector had no further questions regarding this mat tar.
j b.
Inspect re Followup Items (92701) 70-1257/93-03-03 (Closed) - Define Waste Classification Scheme The inspector verified that the licensee had adequately described it waste classification scheme in Revision 2 of Section 4.0, " low-Level Waste Disposal," Chapter 5, " Radioactive Material Shipping j
Standard," of the licensee's Safety Manual (EMF-30).
l f
Z_0-1257/93-03-04 (Closed) - Radiation Survey of Each Packaae of l
the Same lot t
The inspector verified that the licensee had modified its procedures to assure that dose rate measurements were made of each package of an identical lot of fuel bundles shipped together.
This was also evidenced by the licensee's survey records. The
+
inspector had no further questions regarding this matter.
70-1257/93-08-01 (Closed) - Trackina of Attendance for Emeraency Preparedness (EP) Trainina l
l The inspector reviewed the licensee's newly developed EP training attendance tracking system and confirmed that the licensee could determine the qualification status of Plant Emergency Response i
i j
s-f
~
6 Team members. The inspector had no further questions-regarding i
this matter.
70-1257/92-01-04 (Closed) - Amendment of Semiannual Effluent Report i
Inspection Report No. 70-1257/92-01-04, describes the need for the licensee to make an evaluation of un-monitored gaseous effluent releases from the Lagoon Uranium Recovery (LUR) facility and amend its 10 CFR 70.59 semiannual effluent reports.
By letter, " Gaseous Effluent Corrections for Semiannual Reports Required Under 10 CFR 70.58," dated October 12, 1993, submitted corrections to gaseous j
effluent releases for the period of 1985-1991.
Based on the j
review of the licensee's October 12, 1993, letter and an onsite review of the methodology-used to determine the effluent corrections, the inspector concluded that the -licensee's had conservatively estimated the effluent releases and that no NRC limits had been exceeded. The LUR facility remains shutdown until i
facility modifications can be made to assure that gaseous effluent
~
releases are adequately monitored. The inspector had no further questions regarding this matter.
NRC Information Notices (INsl The inspector <erified that the licensee had received, reviewed or f
were in the process of reviewing Ins 93-05, 93-19, 93-50, 93-60, 93-77, and 93-80.
i 4.0 Inspection Exit Meetino (30703)
The scope and results of the inspection were summarized with the licensee representatives denoted in Section I on November 5, 1993, at the conclusion of the onsite inspection.
l i
The licensee was informed of that no violations or deviations from NRC requirements were identified.
l Although proprietary information was reviewed during the inspection,
~,
such information is not described in this report.
No dissenting comments were imparted by the licensee.
L I
i
-