ML20202E564

Requests Us Enrichment Corp Position on Enclosed DOE Description of Interactions Between Usec & DOE Concerning Sys Descriptions,Within 30 Days & in Writing & Under Oath or Affirmation

ML20202E564
Person / Time
Site:	Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant, 07007001
Issue date:	11/26/1997
From:	Paperiello C NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS)
To:	Timbers W UNITED STATES ENRICHMENT CORP. (USEC)
References
EA-97-447, EA-97-448, NUDOCS 9712080078
Download: ML20202E564 (7)

Text

_ _ _ _ ___ ___-_ _ ____ __ ______ __ __- .. _

,, o acg mod 7 <@2 y- k* UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION f WASHINGTON, D.C. 2055M001

\...../ November 26, 1997 I

EAs97-447 & SI-448

. Mr. William H. Timbers President and Chief Executive Officer U. S. Enrichment Corporation 2 Democracy Center 6903 Rockledge Drive i Bethesda, MD 20817 i

SUBJECT:

CANCELLATION OF PREDECISIONAL ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE AND REQUEST FOR INFORMATION (TAC NOs. L32043, L32044)

Dear Mr. Timbers:

By U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission letter dated October 27,1997, we informed you of our intent to hold on December 1,1997, an open predecisional enforcement conference with you conceming two apparent violations involving failures to comply with Condition 8 of the Certificates of Compliance for the Paducah and Portsmouth gaseous diffusion plants. On November 21,1997, NRC recnived from the Department of Energy (DOE) information relevant to the apparent violations conceming interactions between DOE and U. S. Enrichment Corporation (USEC) in updating system descriptions. In order to better understand the circumstances of the case and determine the appropriateness of enforcement action in this matter, it is necessary to obtain further information from USEC. Accordingly, pursuant to 10 CFR 76.70(e) please provide NRC within 30 days, and in writing and under oath or a#irmation, USEC's position on the enclosed DOE description of the interactions between USEC and DOE conceming system descriptions.

In light of this request for information, NRC is canceling the December 1,1997 confererce and will reschedule it after considering your response to this request.

,.I p ~ r o' 5 )

hM..Puu25"L'E I" f~TQT~O

.a.. @w a .DV 9712080078' 971126 PDR ADOCK 07007001 C pop O S0"] ll ll lll,l!!)l!llill,lll

~

Mr. W. H. Tinv rs, USEC 2 November 26, 1997 in accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," a copy of this letter and its enclosures will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room and in each of the Local Public Document Rooms for the GDPs.

Sincerely, (Originalsignedby)

Carl J. Paperiello, Director Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Dockets 70-7001,70-7002 Certificatea GDP-1 and GDP-2

Enclosure:

As stated l cc: Cteven Toelle, USEC Randall DeVault, DOE DISTRIBUTION: (TAC Nos: L32044, L320G)

Dockets 70-7001, 70-7002 NRC Fue Centar. PUBLIC NMSS Dir. Off. r/f FCSS r/f K. O'Brien, Rl!I P. Hiland, Rill M. Horn Y. Faraz D. Persinko C.Cox N. Mamish,OE J. Lieberman,OE P. Ting W. Schwink D. Hartlar.d, Rlli SPB r/f CP/PHOOPED/ NOVEMBER 35.1997 OF SPB* SPB* SPB* FCSS* OE* NMSS C ,f1 W

)h NA DMartin/ij DHoadley RPierson ETenEyck JLieberman CPaperiello ME DA 10/7/97 10/7/97 TE 11/25/97 11/26/97 11/26/97 // /)6 /97 G:\USECVIOL.dem OFFICIAL RECORD COPY

<2s _-

Mr. W. H. Timbers, USEC 2-

/

In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice,"4 copy of this letter and its enclosures will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room an #n i each of the Local Public Document Rooms for the GDPs.

Sincerely, Cart #Paperiello, Director Offi le of Nuclear Material Safety d Safeguards Dockets 70-7001,70-7002 Certificates GDP-1 and GDP-2

Enclosure:

As stated cc: Steven Toelle, USEC Randall DeVault, DOE -

DISTRIBUTION- (TAC Nos: L32044, L32043)

Dockets 70-7001,70-7002 NRC File Center PUBLIC Rill NMSS Dir. Off. r/f FCSS r/f --

K. O'Brien/t llli P. Hiland, Rill M.Hom Y. Faraz D. Persinko C.Cox N Mamrsh,OE J. Lieberman.OE P. Ting W. SclWnk SPB r/f D. Ha41alid. Rill OFC SPB ksPB bh SPS _

NMSS nade , ( M '4 7%w ~ 4% / M'dycx

. I htko.,m.n cP.n.n.ii.

DATE /!1 7 -4emTP- // /1 f ,i / h 197 I / Nr/97 / 19 7 GAUSECVIOLdem

~

OFFICIAL RECDRD COPY 1

DOE Fact Sheet United States Enrichment Corooration (USEC) Potential Violation - Failure to Update Paducah and Portsmouth Aoolication With DOE Site Wide Safety Analysis Reoort iSAR) by Auaust 17.1997

Background:

1 USEC submitted a letter to U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) on August 18,1997, proposing a substantial delay in the schedule to meet the commitment of Compliance issue 2,

~

" Update the Application Safety Analysis Report'. A three year de!ay involving a substantial effort was proposed by USEC based on the need to " ensure completeness and accuracy" Subsequently, the NRC issued a letter to USEC notifying them of a preliminary finding of a potential violation for failing to meet USEC's Comp liance Plan Commitment on ISSUE 2. A meeting has been scheduled by the NRC for December 1,1997, to discuss the matter before a final determination is made. This NRC has described this meeting as a transcribed " pre-decisional" open enforcement meeting.

Meeting Topic:

USEC in previous managerial status meetings with the NRC has indicated that the DOE Site-Wide SAR contains discrepancies in systems descriptions which would cause USEC to miss the completion date of the Compliance Plan issue 2 commitment to " ensure completeness

, and accuracy". In addition, they have indicated the Compliance Plan " Plan of Action and l Schedule" did not allow them sufficient time to fully assess and understand the scope of the

} effort.

Facts:

1. USEC has been the lessee / operator of the Gaseous Diffusion Plants (GDPs) since July 1,1993. As such, tne corporation has been in control of the activities at the Podsmouth and Paducah GDPs.

2. USEC was committed to parform reviews of Facility and System descriptions during the DOE Site-Wide SAR Update by revision 2 of the Compliance Plan spproved and submitted to the NRC in early 1996. Thus, USEC was responsible for ensuring the technical accuracy and validity of the Facility and System descriptions. The Compliance Plan, issue 2, also committed USEC by August 17,1997 to compare the new information, findings and recommendations contained in the DOE site-wide SAR to the application SAR and 1) identify the differences,2) evaluate the effects of those differences on safety, and 3) propose modifications.

ENCLOSURE

l j

2

(

3. USEC and/or its primary contractor, Lockheed Martin / 'ities Services (LMUS), were  !

informed of and involved in determining the content and methodology utilized by the DOE and its contractor personnel to develop the site-wide SARs.

a. Safety Analysis Report Upgrada (SARUP)/ DOE personnel made presentations to USEC throughout 1993,1994, and 1995 to discuss program intent and approach,

b. A presentation was made in summer of 1995 to NRC by USEC and SAR Upgrade Program personnelidentifying the SARUP plan to revise plant / system descriptions of safety class and safsty significant systems only. Non-safety system descriptions would be obtained from the application write-vo. The Gaseous Diffusion Plants (GDPs) configuration of record would be September 30,1995.

This was acknowledged and included in the Comp liance Plan which stales, "The facility and equipment description wi31 be revised to accurately depict the plant safety class and safety significant structures, systems and components and related support systems as of a specified date."

! c. Facility and System description drafts were transmitted to the plants from June 1993 to May 1994 for review. Minimal review was received from the plants.

Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant (PGDP) informed the DOE SAR Upgrade project that PGDP would perform any needed modifications to the Facility and l

System description. By May 1994, a complete draft of Ponsmouth Gaseous I Diffusion Plant (PORTS) Facility and System description for support of the USEC

} Application was provided. The same information for PGDP was placed on hold

} awaiting USEC modifications. A limited review of the PORTS descriptions was provided by the plants. Reviews and revisions of PORTS descriptions (in various phases) was placed on hold due to a USEC issue on regarding responsibility for control of the SAR project (i.e. DOE or USEC control).

d. An enormous number of draft documents covering descriptions, Hazards analysis, Plant Safety Operational Analysis (PSOA), accident scenarios, source terms, consequence analysis, safety related structures, systems and components, potential technical safety requirements, and programmatic descriptions were sent to the plants primarily through hard copy and E-mail for review, accuracy checks, and general comment beginning in summer 1995. Review of these products varied from kaen interest to non-responsive. Review interest was a function of the direct bearing on plant operations. Examples of DOE efforts to obtain USEC review and agreement on the SAR upgrade are given below:

. Meetings were held with PGDP and PORTS plant personnel and USEC representatives in late 1994 and early 1995 to agree on PSOA methodd.ogy approach. ,

System ana!ysis fault trees supporting PSOAS were sent to the plant in '

May 1995 and updated fault trees to match the 9 .1/95 plant configuration were submitted for review in September 1996.

. The first PSOA drafts which included system description information were providad for plant review in January of 1996. The majority of the

.e

. 3 PSOAS were issued for review between January and May of 1996. A meeting was held in mid-July of 1996 at PORTS to obtain and discuss comments on the PSOAS provided by that date.

. The DOE SAR upgrade project sent PGDP the final draft of the Plant Hazard Screening document in September 1995 requesting a review and sign off or modification. '

. Process hazard analysis for PORTS facility X-344a was sent for review on November 8,1995, and a review meeting was requested. Other hazard analysia were provided at a rapid pace.

. A meeting was requested by e-mail to PGDP and PORTS to determine and agree on the configuration and assumptions for accident source terms. The meeting occurred at PGDP on December 13,1995. Meeting notes capturing assumptions were distributed for confirmation on December 20,1995.

. A review of PGDP radiological process hazards analyses was requested on January 31,1996. A request for information on chemical hazards was repeated on February 9.1996.

. Facility description information as written in Chapter 2 of the SAR was e.ent to P3DP for review in February 1996. The response from PGDP (USEC) on March 5,1996, was for DOE to make the descriptions consistent with the NRC Application SAR Agreement was reached with PORTS (March 1,1996) to limit the DOE SAR non-safety details which could impact the USEC Application SAR.

. On July 8,1996, PGDP was provided for review copies of PSOA for cascade and balance of plant for review. Recommended review meeting was set up.

. On July 11,1996, SARUP e-mail to PORTS discussed notification by PGDP that USEC had given specific instructions to the plants not to review any of the programmatic chapters of the draft SAR. The importance of reviewing some of these chapters was stressed. The NCS chapter was particularly stressed.

.- On August 8,1996, PGDP e-mail reiterated specific USEC instructions.

Stressed Programmatic Chapters should be NRC application Rev. 3 verbatim.

. Several meetings were held to discuss specific subjects with plant personnel and USEC representatives. Examples include:

- Dispersion modeling, May 1996

- Consequence & source term analysis , July 1996

. All SAR chapters were provided to the plants for review beginning in

s ,

[ 4 February 1993 and continuing through draft issuance of SAR for DOE review in September 1996.

3. DOE transmitted drafts for approval copies of the SARs September 30,1996, to USEC 1 and the plants.

4. DOE transmitted approved site-wide EARS for the Portsmouth and Paducah GDPs and the accompanying Safety Evaluation Reports (SERs) to USEC on February 14,1997.

5. USEC met with NRC in August 1997 conceming USEC's lack of compliance with the August 17,1997, commitment date. In this meeting USEC stated that there were only several minor discrepancies in the SAR analysis and descriptions of safety class and i safety related systems. Therefore, safety related items from the DOE SAR that required resolution by USEC would take at most a few weeks. This schedule is i

! significantly different to the three years for resolution that USEC is currently proposing.

l As such, only non-safety related inconsistencies are the is:iue.

Conclusion:

As evidenced by the many exchanges of information between DOE /USEC/NRC during the

, development process of the DOE site-wide SAR, DOE made a conscientious and consistent effort to ensure that the technical information was available to USEC for their review.