ML20196H842

Discusses Insp Rept 70-7002/99-06 on 990322-26 & Forwards Notice of Violation & Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in Amount of $55,000

ML20196H842
Person / Time
Site:	Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant
Issue date:	06/29/1999
From:	Dyer J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To:	Adkins J UNITED STATES ENRICHMENT CORP. (USEC)
Shared Package
ML20196H845	List: ML20196H842 ML20196H855
References
70-7002-99-06, 70-7002-99-6, EA-99-080, EA-99-80, NUDOCS 9907070020
Download: ML20196H842 (5)

Text

r ,

,_ UNITE 3 STATES

.g **%( J NUCLEAR RESULATORY COMMISSION REGION lli

'E

• 801 WAARENVILLE ROAD USLE. ILUNolS 60632-4361 June 29, 1999 I

l l

EA 99-080 Mr. J. N. Adkins Vice President - Production

! United States Enrichment Corporation Two Democracy Center 6903 Rockledge Drive Bethesda, MD 20817

SUBJECT:

NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND PROPOSED IMPOSITION OF CIVIL PENALTY-

$55,000 (NRC Inspection Report 70-7002/99006(DNMS))

Dear Mr. Adkins:

This refers to the inspection conducted March 22 through 26,' 1999, at the United States Enrichment Corporation's (USEC) Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant in Piketon, Ohio. The inspection report detailing our findings was issued on April 22,1999. One apparent violation was identified and considered for escalated enforcement action, and you were provided an opportunity to respond to the apparent violation or request a predecisional enforcement conference. At your request, a predecisional enforcement conference was held on June 10,1999, to discuss the apparent violation, the root causes, and the corrective action. A summary report of the conference will be sent to you by separate correspondence.

, Based on the information developed during the inspection, the information provided in your l- letter dated March 19,1999, and the information provided during the conference, the NRC has L determined that a violation of NRC requirements occurred. The violation is cited in the l enclosed Notice of Violation and Proposed imposition of Civil Penalty (Notice), and the l' . circumstances surrounding the violation are described in detail in the subject inspection report. i The violation involves a failure to classify an emergency situation as an Alert. I I

On December 9,1998, the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant experienced a significant fire in i the first cell of the Side Purge Cascade located in Building X-326. During the two hour duration of the fire, firefighters observed thick smoke, twenty foot flames, and large quantities of oil on l  ;

the cell floor indicating that the fire had the potential to affect the heal 5 and safety of personnel  !

in Building X-326 and the immediate surrounding area. In addition, visible holes in the process j gas cascade piping showed that the piping barrier between the process gas (uranium ,, l hexafluoride) and the environment had been breached and that the single control relied upon

. for nuclear criticality safety had been violated. [f g ' jl The failure to declare an Alert during this event resulted in not activating the onsite emergency  !

operations facility which would have provided technical and management support to the onsite l incident response efforts. This increased the duration of your event response and prevented  ;

prompt corrective actions to reestablish criticality controls. Failure to declare an Alert also j c

7 9907070020 990Mt9 i PDR ADOCK 07007002

.C POR i L' l

. 4

. C )

i 1

J. Adkins . {

t resulted in not notifying local, state and Federal agencies of the event, or its significance, so that they could fulfill their emergency response functions. I During the enforcement conference, USEC stated that the immediate cause of the violation was

' an inconsistency between the Emergency Plan and the Emergency Plan Implementing I Procedure. Section 3 of the Emergency Plan states that significant emergencies are classified k

. as either Alerts o'r Site Area Emergencies (SAE). Section 3.1.1 of the Plan further defined an Alert as an emergency situation that:. (1) could lead to a release to the environment of radioactive or other hazardous material, or (2) could have a direct effect on the health and safety of plant personnel. Plant Procedure XP2-EP-EP1050, Appendix B included guidance, in the form of emergency action levels to aid in the proper classification of emergency situations.

However, the procedure ~also included a note which indicated that fire should not be classified as an Alert. Specifically, the note stated that

• Events or conditions that do not meet the criteria for Alert or SAE such as fire, bomb threat, natural phenomena, and others are considered to be Operational Emergencies and may be reportable to NRC and DOE. Refer to applicable event reporting procedures for guidance " While this inconsistency was identified on the day of the event by both the NRC and USEC, the NRC inspection team identified several additional inconsistencies in March 1999 betwern the Plan and the implementing Procedures.

The NRC has considered all of the information surrounding this violation and concluded that while the actual safety consequences were minimal, the violation is of significant safety concern. Therefore, the vic!ntion has been categorized in accordance with the " General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions (Enforcement Policy),"

NUREG-1600, as a Severity Level lli violation.

in accordance with the Enforcement Policy, a tr.se civil penalty in the amount of $55,000 is considered for a Severity Level lli violation. Because Portsmouth has been the subject of escalated enforcement actions within the last two years', the NRC considered whether credit ~

was warranted for /dedncation and Corrective Action in accordance with the civ 1 penalty .

assessment process in Section VI.B.2 of the Enforcement Policy.' identification credit is not ]

warranted for the following reasons. In accordance with the Enforcement Policy, the NRC ,

evaluated missed opportunities for your staff to identify the causes of the violation. The  !

Emergency Plan is required to be implemented by approved procedures, and since  !

March 1997, activities that should have identified deficiencies -in the Emergency Plan j Implementing Procedures such as response to emergencies, training, drills and exercises, i failed to detect the inconsistencies between the Emergency Plan and the required implementing Procedures. Your staff also stated at the enforcement conference that a root cause of the violation was a reluctance on the part of managers to activate the Emergency  ;

Operations Facility because they had been criticized for doing so in the past. This apoears to l be a pre-certification culturalissue that USEC had not resolved prior to this event. Further, i l

' A Severity Level 111 violation with a $55,000 civil penalty was issued July 14,1998-EA's 98 249, I 98 250,98-251 - Air to close containment valve failures.

l ..

[ g J. Adkins l Compliance Plan issue 30, " Procedures Program," required upgrade of procedures; however, required Alarm Response Procedures for cell alarms or cell coolant alarms had not been

~

developed at the time of the event. Your staff's failure to develop these procedures contributed to the magnitude and duration of the event. In addition, the NRC staff also questioned the USEC facility staff about whether the event classification was appropriate during the event. At

, - the enforcement conference, senior USEC managers stated that they questioned the lack of an l emergency declaration on the day of the event, but after the fire was out; however, because of these numerous missed opportunities, identification credit is not warranted.

Corrective Action credit is warranted because your corrective actions were both prompt and I

comprehensive. These actions, which were described in your March 19,1999, letter and discussed during the conference included but were not limited to: (1) the Portsmouth Operations Department issued a lessons leamed to the incident Commanders regarding the need to activate the Emergency Operations Center for conditions such as fire, explosion or natural phenomena that could potentially impact personnel or public health and safety; (2) a Long-Term Order was issued clarifying actions to be taken for emergency aedon levels associated _with a fire, security-related incident, natural phenomena, or equipment failure; (3) Procedure XP2-EP-EP1050 was revised to add an emergency action level consistent with NRC Regulatory Guide 3.67 and local and state emergency agency officials were briefed on the procedure changes; (4) affected personnel were trained on the revision of XP2-EP-EP1050; (5) emergency action levels in all Emergency Plan Implementing Procedures are being reviewed, and annual refresher training has been instituted on the emergency action levels; and (6) incident response teams are being established on each shift.

Therefore, to emphasize the importance of early identification of deficiencies prior to the issues

-- being revealed through an event, I have been authorized, after consultation with the Director, Office of Enforcement, to issue the enclosed Notice of Violation and Proposed imposition of Civil Penalty in the base amount of $55,000 for the Severity Level lil violation.

You are required to respond to this letter and should follow the instructions specified in the ,

enclosed Notice when preparing your response. The NRC will use your response, in part, to  !

determine whether further enforcement action is necessary to ensure compliance with J regulatory requirements, j

I l

i I

I LL.

. i e

J. AdKins In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," a copy of this letter, its enclosure, and your response will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room.

Sincerely, 9

% 6V I

\

J. E. D er l Regional Administrator Docket No. 70-7002  ;

Certificate No. GDP-2

, {

Enclosure:

Notice of Violation and Proposed imposition of Civil Penalty cc w/enci: J. M. Brown, Portsmouth General Manager P. J. Miner, Manager, Nuclear Regulatory Affairs Portsmouth H. Pulley, Paducah General Manager S. A. Toelle, Manager, Nuclear Regulatory ,

Assurance and Policy, USEC 1 Portsmouth Resident inspector Office Paducah Resident inspector Office R. M. DeVault, Regulatory Oversight Manager, DOE E. W. Gillespie, Portsmouth Site Manager, DOE

l-.' '

j. J. Adkins L-DISTRIBUTION:

PUBLIC IE-07 SECY CA-WTravers, EDO MKnapp, DEDE FMiraglia, DEDR JLieberman, OE DDambly, OGC-CPaperiello, NMSS

- ETen Eyck, NMSS Enforcement Coordinators RI, Rll and RIV JGilliland, OPA -

HBell, OlG GCaputo, Ol LTremper, OCFO OE:EA (2)

RAO: Rill -

SLO: Rill PAO: Rill DNMS (3)

OCFO/LFARB w/o encl. l State of Ohio i

j I

!