ML010890299
| ML010890299 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant, Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant |
| Issue date: | 04/17/2001 |
| From: | Virgilio M Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards |
| To: | Timbers W U.S. Enrichment Corp (USEC) |
| References | |
| EA 99-333, EA 99-334 ML010890299 | |
| Download: ML010890299 (2) | |
Text
April 17, 2001 Mr. William H. Timbers, President and Chief Executive Officer United States Enrichment Corporation 2 Democracy Center 6903 Rockledge Drive Bethesda, MD 20817
SUBJECT:
UNITED STATES ENRICHMENT CORPORATION RESPONSES TO NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION LETTERS OF NOVEMBER 17, 2000, EXERCISE OF ENFORCEMENT DISCRETION (EA 99-333) AND NOTICE OF VIOLATION (EA 99-334), RESULTING FROM NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REVIEW OF 1999 UPDATE TO CERTIFICATION APPLICATION
Dear Mr. Timbers:
In our letter to you of November 17, 2000, (Exercise of Enforcement Discretion for the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant), violations of the plant change requirements in 10 CFR 76.68 were discussed. Two violations, involving Request for Application Change (RAC) 97C275 and RAC 98C136, were dispositioned under the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staffs discretionary enforcement authority (EA 99-333). A third violation, involving RAC 99C054, was determined to be a minor violation of very low safety significance. These violations were identified from our review of the 1999 annual update summarizing the 1998 changes to the Certification Application for the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant (GDP). In this letter, you were asked to clarify the circumstances surrounding the occurrence of RAC 96C120 in a further response, in order to resolve inconsistencies in information on this matter previously provided by the U.S. Enrichment Corporation (USEC). USEC (Paducah) responded with a letter from Steven A. Toelle to me dated December 11, 2000, which we have reviewed.
In accordance with the Enforcement Policy, NRC concludes that RAC 96C120, concerning a revision to the requirements for securing oxidants from offstream treatment when monitoring instruments are out of service, is a minor violation due to low safety significance. As worded, the change could have been implemented to allow operation with only one instrument in service with continued return of both ClF3 and F2 to the cascade. However, USEC has indicated that the change was poorly worded, that USEC never intended to operate in this manner, and that the change was never implemented in a manner to allow continued return of both gases when one instrument was out of service. In addition, when NRC identified RAC 96C120 as permitting inappropriate changes, USEC immediately reviewed plant procedures and confirmed no inappropriate changes had been made. USEC followed up by replacing RAC 96C120 with RAC 99C072, which provides a clear delineation of requirements for securing oxidants from return to the cascade when one instrument is out of service. The staff concludes that a violation did occur because an adequate safety analysis would have identified the change as permitting an Unreviewed Safety Question (USQ ).
2 W. Timbers In our other letter to you of November 17, 2000, (Notice of Violation for the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant), three apparent violations were identified and described and one violation of NRC requirements in regard to Request for Application Change (RAC) 97X236 was cited in the enclosed Notice of Violation (EA 99-334). This violation was identified from our review of the 1999 annual update summarizing the 1998 changes to the Certification Application for the Portsmouth GDP. USEC (Portsmouth) responded with a letter from Patrick Musser dated December 18, 2000. Your response in this letter in regard to EA-934 was reviewed and determined to be acceptable in that it adequately identifies the reason for the violation and the corrective actions appear to be sufficient to prevent recurrence. No further regulatory action regarding this matter will be taken.
We also directed, in both letters, that USEC address how it intends to incorporate guidance intended to clarify the definition of an USQ and incorporate that guidance for criticality safety-related changes into your plant programs. This has not as yet been done for either facility. The need for a meeting to better understand the NRC staffs requirements was identified in both USEC letters as a prerequisite to developing additional internal guidance. I am, therefore, requesting your staff to meet with us at the earliest mutually agreeable date at NRC Headquarters at White Flint in Rockville, MD. The meeting room and agenda will be provided in a meeting notice to be provided after this meeting is scheduled.
If you have any questions, please contact Mr. Dan E. Martin of my staff at (301) 415-7254.
Sincerely,
/RA/
Martin J. Virgilio, Director Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Docket: 70-7001 and 70-7002 Certificate: GDP1 and GDP-2 cc: Mr. Steven A. Toelle, USEC-Headquarters Mr. Randall M. DeVault, DOE-Oak Ridge Mr. Patrick D. Musser, Portsmouth GDP Mr. Howard Pulley, Paducah GDP
2 In our other letter to you of November 17, 2000, (Notice of Violation for the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant), three apparent violations were identified and described and one violation of NRC requirements in regard to Request for Application Change (RAC) 97X236 was cited in the enclosed Notice of Violation (EA 99-334). This violation was identified from our review of the 1999 annual update summarizing the 1998 changes to the Certification Application for the Portsmouth GDP. USEC (Portsmouth) responded with a letter from Patrick Musser dated December 18, 2000. Your response in this letter in regard to EA-934 was reviewed and determined to be acceptable in that it adequately identifies the reason for the violation and the corrective actions appear to be sufficient to prevent recurrence. No further regulatory action regarding this matter will be taken.
We also directed, in both letters, that USEC address how it intends to incorporate guidance intended to clarify the definition of an USQ and incorporate that guidance for criticality safety-related changes into your plant programs. This has not as yet been done for either facility. The need for a meeting to better understand the NRC staffs requirements was identified in both USEC letters as a prerequisite to developing additional internal guidance. I am, therefore, requesting your staff to meet with us at the earliest mutually agreeable date at NRC Headquarters at White Flint in Rockville, MD. The meeting room and agenda will be provided in a meeting notice to be provided after this meeting is scheduled.
If you have any questions, please contact Mr. Dan E. Martin of my staff at (301) 415-7254.
Sincerely,
/RA/
Martin J. Virgilio, Director Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Docket: 70-7001 and 70-7002 Certificate: GDP1 and GDP-2 cc: Mr. Steven A. Toelle, USEC-Headquarters Mr. Randall M. DeVault, DOE-Oak Ridge Mr. Patrick D. Musser, Portsmouth GDP Mr. Howard Pulley, Paducah GDP DISTRIBUTION:
Docket: 70-7001 and 70-7002 ADAMS PUBLIC NMSS r/f FCSS r/f SPB r/f CTripp WGleaves RWescott HAstwood CBlanchard, RIII DHartland, RIII WSchwink, FCOB MPhillips, RIII LBerg ADAMS Accession Number: ML010890299 DOCUMENT NAME: G:\\SPB\\DEM1\\USEC7668LETTER.WPD *Please see previous concurrence.
OFC SPB SPB SPB SPB NAME DMartin:cc*
DHoadley HAstwood*
JGiitter*
DATE 3/30/01 3/ /01 3/30/01 3/30/01 OFC SPB FCSS NMSS NMSS NAME DGillen*
MWeber MFederline MVirgilio DATE 3/30/01 3/ /01 4/ /01 4/17/01 C = COVER E = COVER & ENCLOSURE N = NO COPY OFFICIAL RECORD COPY