ML20204F251

Ack Receipt of Informing NRC of Steps Taken to Correct Violations Noted in Insp Rept 70-7001/98-18.Actions Will Be Examined During Future Insp

ML20204F251
Person / Time
Site:	07007001
Issue date:	03/17/1999
From:	Hiland P NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To:	Adkins J UNITED STATES ENRICHMENT CORP. (USEC)
References
70-7001-98-18, EA-99-016, EA-99-16, NUDOCS 9903250248
Download: ML20204F251 (2)

Text

[ .. f l p-March 17, 1999 EA 99-016 l Mr. J. N. Adkir,a Vice President - Production United States Enrichment Corporation Two Democracy Center 1 6903 Rockleoge Drive Bethesda, MD 20817-

SUBJECT:

RESPONSE TO PADUCAH INSPECTION REPORT 070-7001/98018(DNMS)

Dear Mr. Adkins:

This refers to your March 1,1999, response to the Notice of Violsilon (NOV) transmitted to you by our letter dated January 28,1999, with inspection Report 070-7001/98018(DNMS). We have reviewed your corrective actions and have no further questions at this time. Your corrective actions will be examined during future inspections.

If you have any questions, please contact me at (630) 829-9603.

Sincerely, l

/s/ P.L. Hiland i Patrick L. Hiland, Chief Fuel Cycle Branch Docket No. 070-7001 Certificate No. GDP-1 l cc: H. Pulley, Paducah General Manager L. L. Jackson, Paducah Regulatory Affairs Manager J. M. Brown, Portsmouth General Manager S. A. Toelle, Manager, Nuclear Regulatory Assurance and Policy, USEC Paducah Resident inspector Office Portsmouth Resident inspector Office R. M. DeVault, Regulatory Oversight Manager, DOE J. C. Hodges, Paducah Site Manager, DOE DOCUMENT NAME: G:\SEC\ PAD 98018.RES To receive a copy of this document, ind;cate in the box:"C" = Copy without enclosure "E"= Copy with enclosure"N"= No copy OFFICE Rill lA)IRlli lF l l NAME Krsek:ib [-Er Hiland PA\&

DATE 03/lf/99 " 03/n/99 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY 9903250248 990317 PDR ADOCK 07007001 -

l C PDR

g ... g. '

t

! J. Adkins -2 1

I bec w/ltr dtd 03/01/99: Docket File i PUBLIC IE-07 J. Lieberman, OE I N. Mamish, OE '

J. Goldberg, OGC E. Ten Eyck, NMSS R. Pierson, NMSS P. Ting, NMSS W. Schwink, NMSS P. Harich, NMSS  ;

l M. L. Horn, NMSS  !

R. Bellamy, RI EJM, Ril (e-mail)

D. B. Spitzberg, RIV/WFCO Greens w/o enci 4

l

\

\  !

240183 1 I

L l

i, ._

j

4. >

r V

,CSEC A Global Energy Company l

l JAMES N. ADKiNs,JR. DIR: (301) 564-3417 VicE PRESIDENT, PRODUCTION fax: (301)571-8279 March 1,1999 )

GDP 99-0046 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attention: Document Control Desk Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant (PGDP)

Docket No. 70-7001 Response to Inspection Report (IR) 70-7001/98018 Notice of Violation (NOV) 98018-01 and Response to an Apparent Violation in Inspection Report 70-7001/98018(DNMS)

The subject IR contained one NOV conceming the failure to correct in a timely manner conditions adverse to quality identified in a 1997 nonconformance report (PR-QA-97-2600, dated May 16, 1997) associated with the application of 10 CFR 21 requirements to augmented quality class components. USEC's response to the violation is provided in Enclosure 1. The corrective actions specified in the enclosures apply solely to PGDP except for UE2 level procedures which are applicable to both sites.

In addition to the cited violation, the IR also identified one apparent violation regarding the failure to control classified matter in an area outside the Contrciled Access Area. USEC's response to the apparent violation is provided in Enclosure 2.

A list of commitments made in this letter is provWd in 3nclosure 3.

Any questions regarding this matter should be ' directed to Larry Jackson at (502) 441-6796.

Sincerely, a

S. W. I h James N. Adkins, Jr.

T Vice President, Production

Enclosures:

As Stated cc: NRC Region III Office NRC Resident Inspector - PGDP 6903 Rocidedge Drive. Bethesda. MD 20817-1818 Telephone 301-564 3200 Fax 301-564 3201 http://www.usec.com OfIices in Livermore. CA Paducah. KY Portsmouth. OH Washington, DC AMR 0 4 tipp' k()3vkD%l f fp

p .

? A l l

OATH AND AFFIRMATION I, Steven A. Toelle, swear and affirm that I am the Nuclear Regulatory Assurance and Policy Manager of the United States Enrichment Corporation (USEC), that I am authorized by USEC to sign and file with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission this Response to an Apparent Violation in Inspection Report 70-7001/98018(DNMS), Enclosure 2 to letter GDP 99-0046, that I am familiar I with the contents thereof, and that the statements made and matters set forth therein are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief.

/1

5. A. Il Steven A. Toelle i

On this 1st day of March,1999, the person signing above personally appeared before me, is known by me to be the person whose name is subscribed to within the instrument, and acknowledged that he executed the same for the purposes therein contained.

In witness hereof I hereunto set my hand and official seal.

4k Robin D. Johnson, N Public State of Maryland, ontgomery County My commission expires June 1,2002

7 _ . . . ,i Enclosure 1 ODP 99-0046 Page 1 of 3 UNITED STATES ENRICHMENT CORPORATION (USEC)

REPLY TO NOTICE OF VIOLATION (NOV) 70/7001/98018-01 Restatement of Violation-' i Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 76.93, " Quality Assurance," requires, in part, that .)

the Corporation shall establish and implement a Quality Assurance Program.  !

Section 2.16, " Corrective Action," of the Quality Assurance Program, required, in part, that conditions adverse to quality shall be identified and corrected as soon as practical.

Contrary to the above, as of January 12,1999, the certificatee failed to correct conditions adverse to quality identified in a 1997 nonconformance report (PR-QA-97-2600, dated May 16, 1997),

associated with the application of 10 CFR 21 requirements to augmented quality class components, for in excess of 18 months.

USEC Response I. Reasons for the Violation The reason for this violation was that insufficient management attention was given to resolution of the issue. The available performance indicator information was not used to alert management on the lack of timeliness of this corrective action.

I A problem report identifying concerns with the Part 21 evaluation and reporting procedure and its application to AQ basic components was written in May 1997 and was not adequately addressed by the'date of the subject inspection report.

In respouse to the original problem report, engineering management established an action plan scheduled to be completed by November 21,1997. Difficulty was encountered in understanding and resolving the issues. Because the plan involved complex, multi-site issues, the schedule was extended three times. These extensions are well documented.

The Corrective Action Program classifies issues according to their significance. They may

- be classified as Significant Conditions Adverse to Quality (SCAQ), Conditions Adverse to Quality (CAQ) or Not Quality Related (NQR). In the case of PR-QA-97-2600, it was designated 'a CAQ. The issue owner recognized the issue as an important issue but he believed the 10 CFR 21 reportability program was in compliance with regulatory requirements. This, in conjunction with the low safety significance of tb issue, resulted in a decreased sense of urgency in correcting the problems identified in the problem report

' compared to other safety significant plant priorities.

i

E .. k l j .

o Enclosure 1 j GDP 99-0046 i

!' Page 2 of 3 ;

1 l l . The 10 CFR Part 21 reporting requirements were being implemented, but management agrees that the problem report identified issues could have been improved in a more timely l manner. USEC has not found this to be a generic problem but has taken actions, and plans ,

to continue, to provide more management oversight of timeliness on addressing CAQ and  !

SCAQ levelissues.

II. Corrective Actions Taken and Results Achieved i i

1. The Commitment Management organization has begun to include and continues to refine its monthly Corrective Actions Program Report which provides performance indicators associated with the corrective action process. These improvements p rovide data and analyses for CAQ and SCAQ action extensions on an overall site and functional organization level. Engineering management has begun using this and their own analyses of the conective action system data to assess their action backlog.

2. Training was provided on October 28, and 29,1998, to design engineers at PGDP, l who perform Part 21 report evaluations as part of their Responsible Dispositioning I Authority (RDA) responsibilities in the site's Corrective Action Process. This j training clarified the applicability of Part 21 requirements to AQ basic components.

This training reviewed the applicability, requirements, and responsibilities for 10 CFR 21 evaluations and the required documentation. Design Engineering Standing Order,98-004, "10 CFR 21 Evaluation and Reporting Guidance," which was issued November 11, 1998, to supplement / clarify the requirements of the 10 CFR 21 evaluation and reporting procedure, UE2-EG-GE1039, incorporated the guidance provided by this tmining pending completion of the necessary procedure revisions.

3. On November 4,1998, the Manager of Nuclear Regulatory Assurance and Policy issued policy guidance for applying the requirements of Part 21 to both Gaseous Diffusion Plants. This guidance clarified fundamental issues of Part 21 such as the definition of a substantial safety hazard and basic components as addressed in PR-QA-97-2600.

4. Beginning in November 1998, RDA reviews of potential 10 CFR 21 nonconformances for reportability used the guidance of standing order 98-004 in conjunction with the 10 CFR 21 reporting procedure. A rereview was initiated for all 10 CFR 21 reportability reviews made for AQ SSC nonconformances since October 1,1997 (i.e., the date AQ boundaries were fully defined). This review, completed on February 26, 1999, determined that no incorrect 10 CFR 21 reportability decisions had been made.

y- ,

l 3 Enclosure 1 ODP 99-0046 Page 3 of 3 1

III. Corrective Actions to be Taken

1. UE2-EG-GE1039,"10 CFR 21 Evaluation and Reporting," will be revised by May 30,1999, to resolve the issues addressed by PR-QA-97-2600 and incorporate the required elements of the interim guidance noted in this response.

2. Padecah's procurement and component dedication process procedures, CP3-EG-EG1076 aad UE2-BM-PC1038, will be revised by May 30,1999, to incorporate the USEC guidance concerning application of Part 21 to AQ basic components.

The requirements of 10 CFR 21 that apply to the GDPs do not include the identification of critical characteristics as 10 CFR 21 does not impose procurement requirements on the GDPs, only reporting requirements. The QAP defines the requirements for the procurement of AQ items and states that the procurement method will be based on the selected critical characteristics and other pertinent criteria.

3. PGDP will develop a performance indicator that will show action extensions per <

month compared to the number of actions open by organization and action extensions '

per month compared to percent extensions for inclusion in the performance indicator report by April 1,1999.

IV. Date of Full Compliance l

Full compliance will be achieved on May 30,1999, following the revision of procedures UE2-EG-GE1039, CP3-EG-EG1076 and UE2-BM-PC1038.

i s

4 Enclosure 2 GDP 99-0046 Page1of3 i

UNITED STATES ENRICHMENT CORPORATION (USEC)

RESPONSETO AN APPARENTVIOLATIONIN j INSPECTION REPORT 70-7001/98018(DNMS) (EEI 70-7001/98018-03)

Restatement of Apparent Violation The regulations in 10 CFR 76.60(i) require, in part, that the Corporation (certificatee) shall comply  !

- with the provisions of 10 CFR 95. The regulations in 10 CFR 95.35(a) require, in part, that no person subject to the regulations in this part may receive or may permit an individual to have access to  ;

matter revealing Confidential Restricted Data unless the individual has a "Q" or "L" access authorization. The failure to properly control classified matter, that is, permitting individuals to have i access.to a document revealing Confidential Restricted Data without having a "Q" or "L" access  ;

authorization when the classified document was left unsecured in a desk in the Building C-720  !

materials management area is an apparent violation of 10 CFR 76.60(i) and 10 CFR 95.35(a).  ;

1 An apparent violation was identified associated with a plant staff member's discovery of an improperly controlled, classified document in an unmarked envelope whbh had been located in a desk in the materials management area of Building C-720 for a number of years, rather than in an ,

approved classified repository. The desk was located outside of the controlled access area for the site and was accessible to individuals not possessing a proper clearance for classified matter. {

USEC Response L Reasons for Violation The reason for the violation was personnel error. On December 2,1998, a plant employee reported to his management that he had a classified document in his possession in an unmarked mail envelope which had been in his desk for a number of years. The employee originally found the document approximately 12 to 14 years ago when assigned an office desk that belonged to a retiring employee. At that time the desk was in the Controlled Access Area in Building C-100. The employee indicated that at the time he originally found ,

the document he felt it was not classified since it was in a desk and not a classified safe. The markings on the document were the words " Confidential Security _ Information" and  ;

" Restricted Data," the latter citing a basis in the Atomic Energy Act. 'Ihe employee had not reopened the envelope containing the classified document until two days prior to tundng the document in to his management. Because the classified document was in an umnarked envelope which had not been opened, it was not identified by the employee or other facility personnel performing spot checks during the site-wide sweep. The site-wide sweep was completed in June 1990 to identify and secure classified documents not properly controlled as a re'sult of previous poor practices. The employee's work area was located in the materials

E .. .

i )

l

l. Enclosure 2 L GDP 99-0046 l

Page 2 of 3 l- management area in Building C-720 which is outside the CAA. This area is routinely accessible to individuals who do not have either a "Q" or "L" access authorization. As a i result, there was the potential for compromise of the classified information, although there l were no indications that an actual compromise had occurred.

The employee, who had attended a number of security briefings prior to his most recent i discovery of the classified document, did not immediately notify management or the security )

staff upon its discovery, which occurred approximately two days before he actually reported the discovery. After attending a December 2,1998, security briefing on recent security events at Paducah, he recognized that the document he had may be classified and not I properly controlled. i l

~

)

This event was caused by: (1) the improper handling of the document by an employee who i retired some 14 years ago; (2) a current employee who did not realize he was in possession of classified material for a number of yeurs; and (3) the same current employee not immediately following the requirements for properly securing classified matter once he realized he had classified matter in his possession.

II. Corrective Actions Taken and Results Achieved I

1. The plant staff properly secured the classified document and the employee performed a sweep for other classified matter in his office area and none was found.

This was completed on December 2,1998.

2; A security representative in conjunction with another member of the materials management staff reswept the contents of the office cubicle where the classified document had been found. No other classified documents or matter were found.

This was completed oa December 3,1998.

3. The plant staffinitiated a sweep of other materials management office areas outside the CAA for similar classified matter concerns. The plant staff did not identify any additional classified documents. This was completed on December 18,1998.

- 4. Disciplinary action was taken for the individual involved in accordance with "The .

l Employee Discipline Handbook." This was completed on December 8,1998.

S. The individual involved was required to attend remedial training on security issues, which entailed a video tape of the initial security briefing training module 1200.01.01, "htitial Security Briefing." This training was monitored by the l individual's supervisor. This was completed on February 10,1999.

I? ..

5 Enclosure 2 GDP 99-0046 Page 3 of 3 l

l 6. A job aide for security tasks was published in the plant newspaper on December 8, 1998. Subjects included were escorting requirements, classified document handling, and classification review requirements for documents.

7. The plant staff developed additional corrective actions including:

a. A plant wide self-assessment of the security process and recent security even+3 at Paducah, Self Assessment C51-SA-98-01, was completed on  ;

Deumber 18,1998. This self assessment identified several findings and -l observations. I

b. A separate team was established to perform a root cause analysis of the self assessment results and develop corrective actions. The assessment findings j have been evaluated, root cause determined and corrective actions are being developed. - A final action plan will be complete by March 31,1999.

c. Development of a revised training module to cover the responsibilities of l plant staffin the security arena is planned. l III. Corrective Steps to be Taken No additional actions are required for this NOV.

IV. Date of Full Compliance Full compliance was achieved for the specifics of this apparent violation on December 2, 1998, when the classified document was properly secured.

1 i

I

f. s.

l l Enclosure 3  !'

! GDP 99-0046 Page1of1 List of Commitments

• l

1. UE2-EG-GE1039, "10 CFR 21 Evaluation and Reporting," will be revised by May 30,1999, l to resolve the issues addressed by PR-QA-97-2600 and incorporate the required elements  ;

of the interim guidance noted in this response. .

I

2. Paducah's procurement and component dedication process procedures, CP3-EG-EG1076 and I UE2-BM-PC1038, will be revised by May 30,1999, to incorporate the USEC guidance I concerning application of Part 21 to AQ basic components.

3. PGDP will develop a performance indicator that will show action extensions per month l compared to the number of actions open by organization and action extensions per month compared to percent extensions for inclusion in the performance indicator report by April 1,1999.

1 1

i 4

l i

I l

l l

l

• Regulatory commitments contained in this document are listed here. Other corrective actions lis ed in this submittal are not considered regulatory commitments in that they are either statements of actions completed, or they are considered enhancements to USEC's investigation, procedures, programs, or operations.