ML20203F303
| ML20203F303 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant, Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant |
| Issue date: | 02/12/1999 |
| From: | Toelle S UNITED STATES ENRICHMENT CORP. (USEC) |
| To: | Meyer D NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM) |
| References | |
| FRN-64FR6388 GDP-99-0032, GDP-99-32, NUDOCS 9902180120 | |
| Download: ML20203F303 (4) | |
Text
._
l i
USEC A Global Energy Company February 12,1999 GDP 99-0032
)
Mr. David L. Meyer Chief, Rules and Directives Branch Division of Administrative Services Office of Administration, Mail Stop: T6D59 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant (PGDP)
Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant (PORTS)
Docket Nos. 70-7001 & 70-7002 USEC Comments on NRC's " Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions; Revised Treatment of Severity LevelIV Violations at Power Reactors,"(64 FR 6388)
Dear Mr. Meyer:
The United States Enrichment Corporation (USEC) is pleased to submit the following comments on the NRC's " Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions; Revised Treatment of Severity Level IV Violations at Power Reactors."
USEC agrees that the changes to the Enforcement Policy will contribute to a more risk-informed regulatory process by allowing licensees to resolve Severity Level IV violations consistent with their
/
risk significance. However, USEC believes that the Commission's decision to currently limit the
/
applicability ofthese changes to power reactor licensees is too narrowly focused. USEC understands i
that the NRC is considering the feasibility of expanding the applicability of this revised policy to other categories oflicensees in the future. For reasons stated below, USEC requests that the NRC N/
promptly amend the Enforcement Policy to include applicability to the Gaseous Diffusion Plants.
As stated by the NRC in the Federal Register, the applicability is being limited to reactor licensees "because of the scope, formality and general effectiveness of their corrective action programs, and the extent of the NRC inspection effort associated with these facilities." The corrective action program required of USEC under 10 CFR Part 76. is equivalent to that required by 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B. 10 CFR Part 76.93 requires USEC to " establish, maintain, and execute a quality assurance program satisfying each of the applicable requirements of ASME NQA-1-1989, ' Quality Assurance Program Requirements for Nuclear Facilities.'" As demonstrated in Enclosure 1, 6903 Rocbder Drive. Bethesda. MD 20817-1818 Telephone 301564-37,0 Fax 301564-3201 http://www.usec.com 9902190120 990212 7
2h, KY Ponsmouth, OH Washington, DC PDR ADOCK 07007001 C
l Mr. David L. Meyer February'16,1999 i
GDP 99-0032, Page 2 Appendix B Criterium XVI and the ASME Standard Basic Requirement 16 are nearly identical.
Furthermore, USEC, through membership in Joint Utility Management Assessment (JUMA), has had the opportunity to benchmark the GDPs' corrective action programs against those of reactor licensees and has found that USEC's programs meet industry standards. Nonetheless, USEC continues to make improvements to the programs, including the development and use of end-point assessment criteria to measure the effectiveness of corrective actions taken. It is not apparent why reactor licensees, even those on the NRC's Watch List for their poor performance with respect to their corrective action programs, are eligible for this treatment under the Enforcement Policy, but USEC is not.
i The NRC has made the revision applicable to all reactor licensees regardless of the performance of the licensees' programs because the NRC maintains its authority to issue Notices of Violation requiring a formal written response from the licensee when circumstances so dictate. The inspection program, instead of focusing on licensee actions taken on each violation, will focus on the overall effectiveness of the corrective action program. If such inspections identify significant violations or programmatic deficiencies in the program, a more in-depth inspection may be done and NOVs justified.
The NRC has acknowledged that Severity Level IV violations are generally "not the most important matters being addressed in a licensee's corrective action program," but because they require a 30-day written report to the NRC, are often given higher priority than their risk significance merits. It is for this reason that the NRC has revised the Enforcement Policy to allow for these violations to be documented as Non-Cited Violations (NCVs) rather than NOVs. The resulting reduction in administrative burden is signific~t. With the exception of the 30-day report to the NRC, USEC's corrective action programs regm.. mat NCVs be treated in the same manner as NOVs (i.e., as a "Significant Condition Adverse to Quality," requiring an investigation, root cause analysis, and corrective action). Based on the reasons stated above, it is USEC's position that the scope, formality and general effectiveness of corrective action programs at the GDPs is equivalent to reactor licensee programs.
Additionally, the extent of the NRC inspection effort at the GDPs is no different than that at the power reactor facilities. The GDPs, like the power reactors, have NRC Resident Inspectors on site, providing a constant assessment of the effectiveness of the corrective action programs.
On January 29,1999, the NRC corrected a notice appearing in the Federal Register on January 6, 1999, (Reference 1) that addressed enforcement discretion in cases involving natural events, after it was recognized that the discretion being given to reactors should also have been given to the GDPs. For the reasons stated above, USEC requests that you similarly promptly amend the Enforcement Policy to include applicability of the recent revision to the Gaseous Diffusion Plants.
3
'4 Mr. David L. Meyer February *16,1999 GDP 99-0032, Page 3 Thank you for the opportunity to provide our comments. We would be pleased to discuss these comments with you. Please contact Ms. Lisamarie Jarriel at (301) 564-3247. There are no new commitments contained in this submittal.
Sincerely, S. A.
I4 Steven A.Toelle Nuclear Regulatory Assurance and Policy Manager : Table, " Comparison of Corrective Action Program Requirements" Reference 1: Federal Register Notice, "NUREG-1600, Rev.1, Revision of NRC Enforcement Policy; Correction," January 29,1999,64 FR 4727.
cc: Mr. Robert C. Pierson, NRC HQ NRC Region III Office NRC Resident Inspector-PGDP 1
NRC Resident Inspector-PORTS
@P 99-0032 Comparison of Corrective Action Program Requirements Appendix B Criterium XVI ASME NQA-1 Basic Requirement 16
" Measures shall be established to assure that
" Conditions adverse to quality shall be identified conditions adverse to quality, such as failures, promptly and corrected as soon as practical."
malfunctions, deficiencies, deviations, defective material and equipment, and nonconformances are promptly identified and corrected."
"In the case of significant conditions adverse to "In the case of a significant condition adverse to quality, the measures shall assure that the cause qual.ty, the cause of the condition shall be of the condition is determined and corrective determined and corrective action taken to action taken to preclude repetition."
preclude recurrence."
"The identification of the significant condition "The identification, cause, and corrective action adverse to quality, the cause of the condition, and for significant conditions adverse to quality shall j
the corrective action taken shall be documented be documented and reported to appropriate levels and reported to appropriate levels of of management;..."
management."
l
"... follow-up action shall be taken to verify implementation of this corrective action."
l 1
i