ML20198A745
| ML20198A745 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant, Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant |
| Issue date: | 12/09/1998 |
| From: | Toelle S UNITED STATES ENRICHMENT CORP. (USEC) |
| To: | Pierson R NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM), NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| References | |
| GDP-98-0264, GDP-98-264, NUDOCS 9812170112 | |
| Download: ML20198A745 (9) | |
Text
-
USEC A Global Energy Company December 9,1998 GDP 98-0264 Mr. Robert C. Pierson Chief, Special Projects Branch Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Attention:. Document Control Desk U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant (PGDP)
Pcrismouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant (PORTS)
Docket Nos. 70-7001 & 70-7002 Proposed Criteria for Reopening Compliance Plan Issues (Revised)
Dear Mr. Pierson:
On November 5,1998, at the request of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), the United States Enrichmerit Corporation (USEC) submitted to NRC proposed criteria for reopening Compliance Plan (CP) issues (reference USEC letter GDP 98-0237).
On November 25,1998, NRC responded to the above referenced USEC letter. NRC proposed some alternative criteria and requested that USEC submit a written response to the NRC comments.
Accordingly, Enclosure 1 to this letter provides USEC's response to NRC's comments. Enclosure 2 to this letter is USEC's proposed revised criteria for determining when a CP action should be /
l considered deficient and for determining if an improperly completed Compliance Plan Issue should be considered for reopening. Changes to the criteria originally proposed by USEC are highlighted /
by margin bars.
Additionally,in NRC's letter of November 25,1998, NRC identified that PORTS CP issues 8,9,18, /g '
23, and 42, should be candidates for reopening. Enclosure 3 provides USEC's evaluation of each of these issues based on the criteria in Enclosure 2. Additionally, the referenced NRC letter requested USEC to submit a schedule for submittal of the associated Certificate Amendment Requests (CARS) for those CP issues that USEC has identified for reopening. As discussed in, USEC proposes to reopen CP issues 8,9, and that portion ofissue 23 concerning AQ-NCS. USEC will submit CARS for these issues to DOE for review by March 15,1999. The CARS will subsequently be submitted to NRC within two weeks following DOE review and approval.
~
9812170112 981209 PDR ADOCK 07007001 C
PDR t
.;f U i
4 6903 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda. MD 2081'7-1818 1
Telephone 301-564-3200 Fax 301-564-3201 http://wwwmec. corn Offices in Livermore. CA Paducah, KY Pommouth, OH Wnhington. DC
i Mr. Robert Pierson j
December 9,1998 l
GDP 98-0264, Page 2 '
As noted in our previous letter, USEC would like to discuss the enclosed criteria with NRC at your earliest convenience. USEC believes that it would be beneficial to discuss the criteria before I
L
. establishing a foimal agreement.. Any questions regarding this matter should be directed to me at
.(301) 564-3250. Enclosure 4 lists the commitment contained in this submittal.
Sincerely, n
- s. R.
/
/
~ Steven A.Toelle
. Nuclear Regulatory Assurance and Policy Manager
Enclosures:
(as stated) cc:
NRC Project Managers - PGDP and PORTS
.NRC Region III Office NRC Resident Inspector-PORTS NRC Resident Inspector - PGDP DOE Regulatory Oversight Manager t
h 1
4 I
.c..
r
~ _ _ _.
- ^
i GDP 98-0264 Page1of4 Resoonse to NRC Comments on the Pronosed Criteria for Deficient Compliance Plan (CP) Actions and Reonening of CP Issues 1.
NRC Comment i
NRC proposed that: " Completion of a CP issue be considered deficient, if as a result ofits self-assessments at Portsmouth and Paducah, documented evidence does not demonstrate adequate completion of the CP action by the required due date. In addition, CP action completions will be considered deficient by USEC, if Problem Reports, Assessment and l
Tracking Reports, or other indicators indicate that deficiencies exist in the completeness of actions stated in the CP Plan of Action and Schedule."
t USEC Resnonse USEC agrees conceptually with the above NRC comment with the exception that USEC proposes that only the CP_ action be considered deficient, versus an issue, ifit is determined that documented evidence does not demonstrate adequate completion of the CP action by the
'. required due date. As was proposed in USEC letter GDP 98-0237 and in Enclosure 2 to this letter, following the determination that the completion of a CP action is deficient, an evaluation will be performed to determine if the affected CP issue should be reopened.
Additionally, in response to the above NRC comment, USEC has combined the two criteria that were originally proposed in our letter ofNovember 5,1998, and also deleted the phrase "other than minor isolated deficiencies."
2.
NRC Comment NRC proposed that a deficient CP issue will be reopened through a Certificate Amendment Request (CAR) if: "(a) the deficiency has not already been corrected, (b) the time to complete any necessary corrective actions to resolve the deficiency will exceed three (3) months from the date of CP issue closure deficiency identification, and, (c) if the deficient CP action is determined to be significant in terms of worker /pubhc safety or safeguards or involves Q, AQ-NCS, or AQ systems, processes or programs."
USEC Resoonse USEC agrees with criterion (a) above. With respect to criterion (b), USEC disagrees with the three (3) months proposed by NRC but agrees the clock should start from the date that a CP action is determined to be deficient.
I i;
GDP 98-0264 4
Page 2 of 4 i
Both USEC and NRC agree that once it is determined that a completed CP issue should be reopened, a CAR must be prepared and submitted to NRC for approval (including review and approval by the Department of Energy). Therefore, USEC suggests that the criteria for determining whether to reopen a CP issue should take into account the time it takes to prepare, submit, and obtain approval of a CAR. Based on past history, the time for USEC to prepare, and for DOE /NRC to approve, a CP related CAR may be on the order of three (3) to six (6) months, and in some instances, a longer time period has been required. Thus, limiting the time to resolve a deficient CP action to three (3) months would most likely result in the deficient CP action being restored to a compliant condition prior to the time a CAR
- could be prepared and approved by DOE and NRC. This would result in unnecessary expenditure of time and resources. If a CP issue can be corrected in less time than it takes to approve a CAR, then it serves no useful purpose to begin processing a CAR which will never be needed.
Additionally, USEC understands the need for a clearly identifiable time period in the criteria.
Therefore, USEC is proposing that the period to resolve the deficient CP action, without reopening the CP action, start from the time that the CP action is determined to be deficient.
USEC expects this determination to be made by the Nuclear Regulatory Affairs Manager within a matter ofdays following the issuance of the PR or ATR documenting the deficiency.
USEC's experience has shown that it may take frcm 45 to 60 days to develop a corrective action plan for a PR or ATR. This leaves about 7 months to address a CP action deficiency without reopening the CP issue. This helps to ensure that the extensive efTort associated with reopening a CP issue will only be undertaken for significant deficiencies.
)
)
Therefore, USEC proposed that criterion (b) be revised to state that the time to complete any necessary corrective actions to resolve the deficiency will exceed nine (9) months from the date that the CP action is determined to be deficient. Thus, USEC believes that the proposed revised criteria would allow sufficient time for preparation, submission, and approval of a CAR to reopen a CP issue before the deficient CP action can be resolved.
With respect to criterion (c), USEC believes that, as proposed in our original submittal, a Compliance Plan issue should be considered for reopening only if the deficient CP action is related to a Q or AQ-NCS structure, system, or component (SSC). The NRC's proposal would require that the affected CP issue should be reopened ifit is "significant in terms of worker /public safety or safeguards or involves Q, AQ-NCS, or AQ systems, processes or programs." USEC believes that the NRC proposed criterion is too broad in scope.
. Reopening of Compliance Plan issues, due to the amount of time and effort required to process the necessary paperwork for this effort and the interim measures that would need to be implemented, should be reserved for those cases where the deficiency involves truly safety significant issues.
GDP 98-0264 Page 3 of 4 3.
NRC Comment 4
NRC proposed that "In addition to the verbal notification to the NRC Resident inspector, formal notification to the NRC should also be made by way of routine CP status updates such as in the semiannual CP status reports and in the status summary provided at the periodic USEC/NRC management meetings. Also, as soon as a CP action completion is determined to be deficient, the CP JCO, including any interim measures, associated with the action would be required to go into effect."
USEC_ Response The actions proposed by USEC in our letter ofNovember 5,1998, are based on current NRC guidance on evaluating and reporting compliance deficiencies. Specifically, in our letter of November 5,1998, USEC stated that:
"Ifit is determined that a completed CP action is deficient, a Problem Report or Assessment and Tracking Report will be written documenting the deficiency,ifone does not already exist. The deficiency will be evaluated for operability, in accordance with the guidance in NRC Generic Letter (GL) 91-18, Rev.1, and reportability. If the deficiency does not meet the criteria for reportability as described in Section 6.9 of the Safety Analysis Report (SAR), then the Nuclear Regulatory Affairs (NRA) Manager at the affected site (.0) will verbally inform the NRC Resident inspector of the deficiency and keep the Resident Inspector informed of actions being taken to resolve the deficiency."
GL 91-18 states that whenever a degraded or nonconforming condition is identified (this would include noncompliance with a CP POAS), then prompt corrective action to correct or resolve the condition must be taken. The licensee (or in USEC's case, the certificatee) must:
" establish a time frame for completion of corrective action. The timeliness of this corrective action should be commensurate with the safety significance of the issue. The time frame governing corrective action begins with the discovery of the condition, not with the time when it is reported to the NRC.
in determining whether *he licensee is making reasonable efTorts to complete corrective action promptly, NRC will consider whether corrective action was taken at the first opportunity, as determined by safety significmce (effects on operability, significance of degradation) and by what is necessary to implement the corrective action. Factors that might be included are the amount of time required for design, review, approval, or procurement of the repair / modification; availability of specialized equipment to perform the
-.----. ~.-.--. - - -.-
GDP 98-0264 Page 4 of 4 repair; etc. If the licensee does not resolve the degraded or nonconforming condition at the first available opportunity or does not appropriately justify a longer completion schedule, NRC would conclude that corrective action has not been timely and would consider taking enforcement action. "
Additionally, GL 91-18, Rev. I states that the license (or certificate in USEC's case)
I
" authorizes the licensee (or certificatee) to operate the plant in accordance with the regulations, license conditions, and the Technical Specifications" (this would also include the CP in USEC's case). "If an SSC is degraded or nonconforming but operable, the license i
establishes an acceptable basis to continue to operate and the licensee does not need to take any further actions. The licensee must, however, promptly identify and correct the condition adverse to safety or quality... Under certain dermed and limited circumstances, the licensee may find that strict compliance with would cause an unnecessary plant action not in the best
- interest ofpublic health and safety. NRC review and action is required prior to the licensee taking actions that'are contrary to compliance with the license conditions or Technical Specifications unless an emergency situation is present. A JCO, as defined herein for general NRC purposes, is the licensee's technical basis for requesting NRC responses to such action."
Thus, in USEC's case if a CP action is determined to be deficient, per approved plant procedures, the deficiency is documented in a PR or ATR and evaluated for operability and reportability. Plant procedures utilize the guidance in GL 91-18 to assess whether continued-operation is allowed until the nonconforming condition is resolved. This evaluation involves determining whether a Technical Safety Requirement (TSR) action statement is required to i
be entered and what compensatory measures, if any, are required. Furthermore, if USEC l
determines that compliance with a TSR action statement or other certificate condition would place the plant in an unsafe condition orjeopardize the health and safety of onsite or offsite personnel then, per plant procedures, USEC would seek Enforcement Discretion from NRC.
Therefore, USEC believes that our proposed actions to be taken when a CP action is determined to be deficient, would assure that appropriate corrective actions are taken and that the NRC is properly notified of this deficiency. USEC's proposal, therefore, accomplishes the objectives of the NRC's comments within the e.sisting and well understood regulatory guidance.
As committed to in USEC's letter to NRC dated November 23,1998 (reference USEC letter GDP 98-2048), the CP Status Report will identify any CP actions that have been determined to be deficient and have not been corrected as of the cut-off date for this report. This wording has been added to Enclosure 2.
r-w y
y---
~
+
4---
m
-i%h a-we---
-+e++-r-w
-v h
e r
l GDP 98-0264 Page1ofI hpposed Criteria for Determining if a Completed Compliance Plan (CP) Action is Deficient USEC proposes that the completion of a CP action be considered deficient ifit meets the following criteria:
The documented completion evidence for the CP action does not demonstrate that l
the issue or action was completed by the required due date (i.e., the issue or action l
was completed after the due date, or the issue or action was never completed) l Ifit is determined that a completed CP action is deficient, a Problem Report or Assessment and Tracking Report will be written documenting the deficiency, if one does not already exist.~ The deficiency will be evaluated for operability, in accordance with the guidance in NRC Generic Letter
{
91-18, Rev.1, and reportability. If the deficiency does not meet the criteria for reportability as 1
described in Section 6.9 of the Safety Analysis Report (SAR), then the Nuclear Regulatory Affairs (NRA) Manager at the affected site (s) will verbally inform the NRC Resident Inspector of the deficiency and keep the Resident Inspector informed of actions being taken to resch e the deficiency.
Additionally, the CP Status Report will identify any CP actions that have been determined to be l
deficient and have not been corrected as of the cut-off date for this report.
l Pronosed Criteria for Re-onening a CP Issue Following the determination that the completion of a CP action is deficient, an evaluation will be performed to determine if the affected CP issue should be reopened using the following criteria:
1.
The time to complete any necessary corrective actions to resolve the deficiency will exceed nine (9) months from the date that the CP action is determined to be deficient; and, I
2.
The deficient CP action is related to a Q or AQ-NCS structure, system, or component; and, 3.
The non-compliance addressed by the deficient action has not already been corrected.
I j
Unless otherwise directed by the NRC, if USEC determines that a CP action is deficient and the affected CP issue satisfies all of the above proposed criteria, a Certificate Amendment Request would be submitted to NRC to revise the affected CP POAS anc' if necessary, the Justification for Continued Operation.
]
1 m
.1 GDP 98-0264 Page1of1 Evaluation of CP issues that NRC Considers Should be Reonened In NRC's letter to USEC dated November 25,1998, NRC identified that PORTS CP issues 8,9,18,23, and 42 be considered for reopening. USEC's evaluation of each of theses issue is provided below:
CP Issues 8. 9. and 23
. USEC agrees that issues 8,9, and the portion ofissue 23 that involves AQ-NCS items should be re-opened. The deficiencies related to these issues and the actions being taken to resolve them are fully described in the quarterly PORTS Nuclear Criticality Safety Corrective Action Plan (reference USEC letters GDP 98-0216 dated October 19,1998 and GDP 98-0236 dated October 30,1998.
CP Issue 18 As noted in USEC letter GDP 98-0214 dated October 9,1998, USEC informed NRC that the corrections to the Emergency Packets, as needed, will be completed by April 15,1999. Thus, per the proposed criteria in Enclosure 2 to this submittal, this issue would not have to be reopened since:
- 1) the deficient CP action is not related to a Q or AQ-NCS structure, system, or component; and 2) the corrective actions to resolve the deficiency will be completed before a CAR can be prepared, submitted, and approved by NRC.
CP Issue 42 As noted in USEC letter GDP 98-0214 dated October 9,1998, compliance with the POAS for this CP issue has been restored. Thus, there is no need to submit a CAR for this issue.
\\
c l
GDP 98-0264 i
Page1of1 List of Commitments USEC will reopen CP issues 8,9, and that portion ofissue 23 concerning AQ-NCS. USEC will submit CARS for these issues to DOE for review by March 15,1999. The CARS will subsequently
. be submitted to NRC within two weeks following DOE review and approval.
i