ML20058N980
| ML20058N980 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 11/17/1993 |
| From: | Chamberlain D NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | Milhoan J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20058N969 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9312220351 | |
| Download: ML20058N980 (7) | |
Text
.
p@%
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION '
f,.b"j i
i REGICN IV EN 611 RYAN PLAZA DRIVE.sulTE 400 DN [
tGI I T ISEB MEMORANDUM FOR:
James L. Milhoan. Regional Administrator FRCM' Dwight D. Chamoerlain. Acting Director Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards
SUBJECT:
REGIONAL ACTIONS TAKEN AFTER RECEIPT OF COPIES OF DIANE CURRAN LETTERS DATED SEPTEMBER 28.1993. AND NOVEMBER 4 1993. REGARDING SEQUOYAH FUELS Per :our request curing a meeting on Novemoer 8.1993. this memorandum previces a summary of regional actions related to the captionec suoject.
There were three letters from Diane Curran dated Seotemaer 28, 1993. One of tnese was addresseo to Ben B. Hayes. Director of 01. and the second to David C. iilliams. NRC :nspector General.
A third letter was addresseo to John C.
Maran. EPA Insoector General.
The letters transmitted a NACE report. " Silent Sirens. ' dateo Seotemoer 28. 1993. relating to the chemical release event at Secuoyan Fuels Corocration (SFC) wnich occurred on Novemoer 17. 1993.
Cooles of these letters and the report (minus appenoices) were received in the Region IV office ey fax from NMSS during the morning of Septemaer 30. 1993.
It :s celieveo that copies were immediately distributec to Joe Callan. DRSS Division Director, and memoers of the Auomented Inspection Team (AIT) that reviewea the suoject SFC event. These team memoers were Bill Fisher. Linca Kasr.er. and Mike Vasquez. Others in the Region IV office no couot also receiveo cooles that day, anc the Region IV Regional Administrator was infermeo of the letters.
Joe Gilliland. Region IV Public Affairs Officer, recalls that he was faxed cooles of the letters by a newspaper on Septemoer 29 ano subseouently provided cooles to several staff memoers including the Allegations Ccoroinator and DRSS ano 01 staff memoers.
On October 6. Joe Callan convened a teleconference of the AIT memrars to discuss the letters.
During this meeting the various allegations raised in the report were reviewed to determine whether any new information was presented.
This meeting concluded that, based on an initial review, the letters contained no new technical information regarding the event.
Because the letters were directed to 0I and the IG, the division determined that no immediate regional action should be taken other than to prepare to answer questions-that would be posed by these two offices.
The letters were also discussed with a member of the Low Level Waste Management Branch. NMSS, during the week of October 4, 1993. The purpose of the discussion was to determine whether NMSS or the regional office should-9312220351 931117-PDR CDMMS NRCCPDR;
,~.- - g
4 -
4 i
James L. Milhoan rescond.
Mr. James Shepherd, the SFC project manager, informed Linda Kasner-that NMSS haa no assigned action ana was not planning to prepare a resconse.
?
At the reauest of 01, this matter was discussed at a Region IV Allegation l
Review Panel (ARP) meeting on October 25. 1993.
The ARP decided to rereview the matter on Novemoer 1, 1993.
At the Novemoer 1 meeting it was discussed that the initial DRSS' review did not identify any new technical issues and the review was continuing. The panel's decision was that no further-action by Region IV staff was warranted at this time.
The ARP again met on November 8. 1993. to review another letter from i
Ms. Curran dated November 4. 1993.
This letter was addressed to Ben S. Hayes.
Director of 01.
The panel discussec actions procosea by DRSS to deveien a position / response for the points identified in the letter.
These actions are on going and are expected to be completed by the ena of Novemoer 1993. This was to be used for review with 01 ano for a possible response.
It was again notea that this letter appearea to contain no tecnnical information wnich had not teen previously addressed by the AIT ana followuo inspections.
The panei agreea with the proposea actions.
Attacnea is a chronology of events relatino to the cnemical release event l
wnicn occurrea at Sequoyan Fuels Corcoration on Novemoer 17. 1992.
h,t,L &
d()s (T r l
0 y
\\_,iC.%.fE%un Dwignt D. Chamoerlain. Acting' Director Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguares Attatnment:
As stated cc:
L. Williamson. 01 f
F i
[
.3.m.
1
~
e l
CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS RESULTING FROM THE CHEMICAL RELEASE AT i
SEQUOYAH FUELS-CORPORATION 11/17/92 Chemical release event occurs. AIT is dispatched to site. The j
team is led by W. L. Fisher, and members include G. M Vasquez.
L. L. Kasner. and C. H. Robinson (NMSS). The inspection is conducted November 17-21. 24. and 25. 1992. and public briefings are held on November 18 and 20. A public exit briefing is held-November 25.
(Inspection Report 92-30 is issued 12/18/92.)
i 11/18/92 A CAL is issued to SFC confirming that they will investigate the -
incident brief NRC staff on the findings. and obtain NRC concurrence before restarting the plant.
11/23/92 SFC announces in a letter to the NRC that it will not resume UF6 production and will eventually cease DUF4 production.
12/8/92 SFC issues letter to the NRC outlining a corrective action plan.
.l 12/8/92 Inspection 92-31 commences.
This inspection. conducted December 8-11. 16-17. and 23. 1992, confirms that the licensee's corrective actions have been implemented and that they are effective.
1 (Inspection Report 92-31 is issued 1/21/93.)
q 12/9/92 A public meeting is held at the SFC site during which the I
licensee's corrective action plan is discussed. ' NRC staff members
}
from Region IV and NMSS are present.
12/11/92 Based on the results of the initial segment of Inspection 92-31, 1
the licensee is notified that three outstanding issues need to be addressed before NRC will authorize restart of the DUF4 facility.
These issues include -
1.
resolving operational as well as hardware related deficiencies (" work arounds")
2.
providing assurance that DUF4 operators will comply with facility operating procedures 3.
describing the level of oversight planned by licensee.
management during the initial-restart period.
The licensee responds to these issues by letter dated 12/14/92.
[
These issues are further reviewed by an NRC inspector on 12/16-17/92.
At that time two outstanding issues remain to be completed.
By letter dated 12/22/92. SFC provides a further-response to the NRC.
12/11/92 NRC's' medical consultants issue their report.
l
- r
' ' m w
...e i..~
1
, l2/17/92 Commissioner Curtiss visits the site.
NACE. media representatives, and the Region IV Regional Administrator are in attenaance.
12/21/92 Licensee briefs the Commission during a public meetifg regarding its future plans and financial assurance resoerces tor decommissioning the facility.
12/23/92 An NRC inspector confirms that final corrective actions have been completed, and.a CAL is issued authorizing restart of'DUF4 production based on the findings of Inspection 92-31 and confirming continuation of the UF6 in standby mode indefinitely.
1/29/93 Inspection Report 92-32 issued.
This inspection, conducted Decemoer-28-31. 1992, and January 3-6. 1993, identifies six apparent violations:
1.
Failure to follow a procedural caution statement requiring a slide gate valve to a previously used digester to be closed' if the digester to be placed in service is not the same as the one used to mix the most recent batch.
2.
Failure to ensure, in accordance with the facility-contingency plan. that the control' room was sealed to prevent entry of external contamination from the' process area.
3.
Two examples of a failure to follow contingency plan requirements to don respiratory protection.-
4 Failure to follow contingency plan requirements to account for all personnel responding to an emergency.
5.
Failure to follow contingency plan requirements'to' sound the air horn signal to alert facility personnel-to an: emergency condition.
6.
Failure to promptly classify the event in accordance with the contingency plan.
2/10/93 SFC briefs the NRC staff in Rockville. Maryland, concerning future decommissioning plans and plans for completing DUF4 operations; 2/16/93 SFC letter to the NRC notifies of SFC decision to terminate activities involving licensed activities and attaches SFC's Preliminary Plan for Decommissioning.
3/2/93 Open enforcement conference held'with licensee at the RIV office.
3/25/93 NRC issues NOV and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty - $18.000.
The NOV cites a single Severity Level II problem.
(The base-
~
p L
l 4
l*
l 3
civi_.1 penalty of. $8.000 was mitigated 50% as a result'of the.
-licensee's corrective actions.
The penalty was escalated 75% due to poor past performance.
The fact that SFC had knowledge of-equipment problems that, if corrected, might have crecluded.the event, warranted an additional escalation of 100%.)
r 4/26/93 SFC issues letter transmitting full payment of' civil. penalty.
l 6/11/93 NRC issues letter to SFC acknowledging payment and disagreeing with the SFC conclusion that no'other credible scenario could.have' resulted in greater personnel injury.
6/25/93 NRC letter to SFC stating that the licensee's site will.be included on the Site Decommissioning Management Plan (SDMP) list.
j a
7/6/93 SFC ends production of DUF4.
l 7/23/93 SFC letter requests exemption from contingency (emergency) plan based on a reduced inventory of hazardous materials on site, i
10/20/93 SFC letter. requests withdrawal of request for exemption from q
contingency (emergency) plan.
a i
Note:
A total of 15 inspections have Deen performed at SFC since the i
event.
j l
I q
-]
'l
-i
.l i
i w-.
CHRONOLOGY OF OI ACTIVITY REGARDING THE CURRAN lE TER 9/29/93 OI:RIV received letter dated 9/28/93 from RIV (Gave copy to Hayes in R:IV) 10/5/93 An informal conversation was held between Williamson (01:RIV) and Vasquez regarding 11/17/92 event. Vasquez indicated that there were no wrongdoing issues identified as a result of an inspection on the 11/17/92 incident.
10/21/93 Discussed 9/28/93 letter with Murphy (0I:HQ). He was informed that 01:RIV had talked with Vasquez and no wrongdoing issues cited.
Murphy said he would have Hayes call Curran. 01:RIV requested that information go to Allegation Review Panel (ARP).
10/21/93 OI:RIV scheduled before ARP for 10/25/93.
10/21/93 Discussed letter with Cain and Kazner (RIV) and they indicated that:
(1)
Event subject to six week AIT (2)
SFC closed for six weeks (3)
Several public meetings held (4)
Enforcement conference in March 1993 (5)
Several violations cited (6)
Civil penalty issued
$18.000 (7)
SFC closed Cain/Kazner/ Wise agreed to ARP 10/25/93 ARP held and no apparent wrongdoing issues were cited.
11/1/93 RIV RE-ARP-DRSS agreed to review 9/28/93 letter and determine if new safety issues exist.
11/5/93 RIV:DRSS requested that 0I obtain copies of the attachments to Silent Sirens. RIV had the Silent Sirens report since 9/30/93. but did not note attachments.
11/8/83 OI:RIV and RIV staff meet to discuss 9/28/93 letter. Prepared response to Congressional inquiries.
01:RIV received 11/4/93 letter.
RIV ARP DRSS agreed to review specific issues in 11/4/93 letter and will advise OI of potential wrongdoing.
11/9/93 OI received attachments to Silent Sirens and gave them to RIV staff.
DRSS preparing draft chronology and will respond to each allegation 11/12/93 OI:RIV received copy of letter to Chairman Selin from Congressman Synar. Copy provided to RIV:DRSS.
m.
)
1,
CHRONOLOGY OF OI:HQ ACTIVITY REGARDING THE CURRAN LETTERS 9/29/93 Hayes in OI.RIV for Field Office Director's Heeting. Obtained copy.'
of Curran letter dated September 28. 1993.- from L Williamson.
i 01:RIV Field Office Director.
j 10/5/93 Upon return to 01:HQ Hayes received Curran's September 28, 1993.
letter, along with Silent Sirens Report and attached documentation.
These documents given to Hurphy. 01:HQ Operations officer, for OI:RIV to be forwarded for review. After reviewing documents, i
Hurphy recommends that the matter be referred to 01:RIV to be presented to an Allegation-Review Panel.(ARP).
~!
10/7/93 Hayes agrees that the matter should be referred to RIV for
.l presentation by 01:RIV to ARP.
i 10/21/93 Curran called 01:HQ for Hayes who was on Travel. Murphy returns j
call and determines that Curran wants to know status her allegations contained in September 28, 1993, letter. Murphy agreed to get information and have Hayes call her back.
10/21/93 Hurphy discussed matter with Williamson who indicates that Curran letter was discussed with RIV staff and no wrongdoing issues were identified. Williamson indicated that matter would be presented to an 01:RIV/RIV ARP. Murphy informed Williamson that this-information-would be passed on to Hayes so he could call Curran.
10/21/93 Hessage left for Hayes to call Curran regarding her September 28. -
1 1993. letter when he returns from travel.
1 10/20-29/93 Hayes on travel.
11/4/93 Hayes contacts Curran and indicates that no wrongdoing issues have l
been identified in original letter and asks for another letter outlining what she views as the wrongdoing matter.
11/4/93 Letter by Curran is faxed to 01:HQ outlining what Curran views as l
wrongdoing issues.
11/5/93 Williamson requests that 01:HQ send attachments to Silent Sirens E!
Report to RIV. RIV had September 28, 1993. letter and copy of Silent Sirens Report since SeStember 30, 1993. but did not have
. i attachments to the report. T1ese documents were immediately mailed to 01:RIV. OI:HQ was of the belief that this had already been accomplished.
]
11/9/93 Williamson notified 01:HQ that the documents that he requested had arrived and had been turned over to RIV for their review.
j 11/10/93 Williamson informed 01:HQ that the matter is currently being-reviewed at RIV and the specific, and if any, wrongdoing allegations require investigation. they wili be addressed in OI Case No.
4 93 048.
l p
.j
_