ML20212D080

Valuable Lessons Can Be Learned from Regulatory Transition of Gaseous Diffusion Plants

ML20212D080
Person / Time
Issue date:	10/20/1997
From:	NRC OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL (OIG)
To:
Shared Package
ML20212D079	List: ML20212D074 ML20212D080
References
OIG-97E-19, NUDOCS 9710300266
Download: ML20212D080 (16)

Text

- _ - - - - - - -

(

OFFICE OF t

THE INSPECTOR GENERAL _

( U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION L

VALUABLE LESSONS CAN BE LEARNED

( FROM THE REGULATORY TRANSITION OF THE GASEOUS DIFFUSION PLANTS

(

OlG/97E-19 October 20,1997

(

SPECIALEVALLATION REPORT

(

(

gaREGy

{

[ A o

b 21 [r .Is '

r

,+ >

m ., % gaf Eu 8R8" 7e?! -

PDR

L F

L Valuable Lessons Can Be Learned Fron' the Regulatory Transition of the Gaseous Diffusion Plants REPORT SYNOPSIS This special evaluation provides the results of the Office of the Inspector General's (OlG) review of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC)

{ program for regulating the two gaseous diffusion plants (GDP) owned by the Department of Energy (DOE) and operated by the United States Enrichment Corporation (USEC). The objectives of our review were to gain an

[ understanding of (1) NRC's processes and management controls for regulating the plants, and (2) NRC's working relationships with other involved federal agencies. The scope of the review included the current status of NRC's program L in addition to transition issues identified that would be applicable to future, external regulation of DOE facilities.

b Unlike fossil fuels, which can be burned in virtually the same form in which they exist in nature, uranium must undergo ennchment to become an efficient fuel for p nuclear power reactors, There are various enrichment techniques but gaseous L

diffusion is the only process that has been used in the United States. The Energy Policy Act of 1992 (the Act) established USEC for the purpose of

{ operating the two GDPs. In September 1994, also as directed by the Act, NRC piomulgated standards for the two GDPs, establishing the framework for NRC to assume regulatory authority over the GUPs. On March 3,1997 NRC ast,umed

{ regulatory authority over the plants, in October 1997 NRC and DOE plan to complete an agreement that details a

[ pilot plan to test the external regulation of other DOE facilities. Depending on the results of the pilot program, NRC may eventually be directeri by Congress to regulate hundreds of DOE facilities. Our observations may benefit that effort.

We found that senior plant officials believe NRC's consistency of regulation and lts expectation of adherence to operating commitments are cresting safer and

[ improved operations at the GDPs. We also found that NRC's inspection approach and its inspection staff are highly regarded and are key to NRC's regulatory consistency. In addition, based on our limited review, we identified

[ several areas where the transition of oversight for the GDPs can provide valuable lessons that may also be applicable to NRC's possible future external regulation of DOE facilities.

{

When we discussed the results of our review with NRC officials, they informed us

{ that staff had recently been instructed to conduct a lessons leamed review of the transition of regulatory authority over the GDPs. NRC's review is projected to be completed about the end of December 1997.

OlG 971:-19 Pagei

l Valuable Lessons Can Be Learned From the Regulatory Transition of the Gaseous Diffusion Plants L

TABLE OF CONTENTS REPORT SYNOPSIS . . . . . . . . . ...... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I r

L I N TR O D U CTI O N . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 y

BACKGROUND .............................. . . . . . . . . . . . 1 L

OBSERVATIONS . . .............. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . ..................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 L .

APPENDICES I Objectives, Scope, And Methodology

{ 11 Major Contributors To This Report lli Glossary: Office Of The Inspector General Products E

[

[

[

[

[

W

[

g,, y, - - - - - -

, u

l lI Valuable Lessons Can De Leamed From the Regulatory Transition of the Gaseous Diffusion Plants ll l

lNTRODUCTION I This special evalur*bn provides the results of the Office of the inspector General's (OlG) review of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) program for regulating the two gaseous diffusion plants (GDP) owned by the Department of Energy (DOE) and vperated by the United States Enrichment Corporation (USEC). NRC is currently working toward implementation of a pilot program that will have NRC providing regulatory oversight for additional, I selected DOE facilities. Our observations may benefit that effort. This work was included in OlG's fiscal year (FY) 1997 Annual Plan.

BACKGROUND I Unlike fossil fuels, which can be burned in virtually the same form in which they exist in nature, uranium must undergo a series of changes to become an efficient fuel for nuclear power reactors. Enrichment is the process used to increase the percentage of uranium 235 (U-235)in nuclear fuel. Natural uranium contains only about 0.7 percent U-235 but most commercial nuclear power plants '

operating today are designed to use uranium enriched to approximately 3 percent by weight as nuclear fuel. There are various enrichment techniques but gaseous diffusion is the only process that has been used in the United States. There are two gaseous ditfusion plants operating today, located near Portsmouth, Ohio, and Paducah, Kentucky. These plants have been operating safely under DOE for about 40 years.

The Energy Policy Act of 1992 (the Act) amended the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 to establish USEC for the purpcse of operating the two uranium enrichment plants owned and previously operated by DOE. Under the Act, USEC became a wholly owned govemment corporation and the exclusive marketing agent of enriched uranium for the government. USEC assumed operation of the plants I on July 1,1993. The Act mandated USEC to privatize, if possible, and also provided that NRC was to promulgate standardsm for the two operating GDPs within two years of its enactment, in September 1994, NRC issued 10 CFR Part 76, Ccrtification of Gaseous Diffusion Plants, which estabinshed the I

I These standards include procedural requirements, generally applicable NRC health and safety standards, technical safety requirements, and safeguards and secunty requirements specific to the areas of the GDPs leased to USEC.

Olo/97E 19 Page1

I l

Valuable Lessons Can Be Leamed From the Regulatory Transition of the Gaseous Diffusion Plants certification

• process and the standards for the two plants. DOE continues to conduct some operations at the sites that do not fall under NRC regulatory authority.

l In April 1995, USEC submitted applications for certification which were rejected by NRC because they lacked adequate information to determine compliance with safety regulations. After USEC submitted revised applications, NRC issued Certificates of Compliance, which include compliance plan

• approval, for each plant. The initial certificates, issued in November 1996, are for a period of about two years with expiration dates of December 31,1998. On March 3,1997, following a transition period that allowed USEC to complete procedural revisions and training, NRC assumed re,gulatory authority over the plants. DOE retains ownership of the facilities and will be res;scisible for the eventual t

decommissioning of the sites. In April 1998, the USEC Privatization Act was signed into law with provisions intended to make USEC more attractive to a potential private sector buyer. USEC is currently pursuing privatization through an initial public offering or a merger / acquisition. l E

in October 1997, NRC and DOE plan to complete an agreement that details a pilot plan to test the external regulation of other DOE facilities. The pilot program will use ' simulated regulation" to test "a facility and its standards, requirements, procedures, practices, and activities against the standards that 1RC believes would be appropriate to ensure safety at that pilot facility." Depending on the results of the pilot program, NRC may eventually be directed by Congress to regulate hundreds of DOE facilities.

OBSERVATIONS We focused our work on two functienal activities involved in the transition of regulatory authority and in NRC's program to provide oversight of the GDPs: g licensing activities, including regulations, application review, and processing of E 8

The Act directed NRC to establish and implement a certification process under which the two GDPs would be certified by NRC for compliance with the standards. For areas where plant operations were not yet in compliance, the Act provided for a compliance plan g prepared by DOE. A certification process was used in order to allow for compliance plans g and continued operations that might not be allowed under a licensing action.

8 The compliance plant .: epared by DOE and submitted by USEC, desenbe how and when the plants rill bt brought into compliance with NRC's requirements in instances l,

=

where compliance was laking at the time of certification. The compliance plans also set forth the safety and safeguards Lasis, including compensatory actions, that justifies g continued operation until compliance is achieved USEC reviewed the plans which were 3 then submitted to and approved by NRC.

olG/97E 19 Page 2

Valuable Lessons Can Bo Leamed From the Regulatory Transition of the Gaseous Diffusion Plants arnendments; and inspection and inspection related training and enforcement activity. We found that senior plant officials believe NRC's consistency of regulation and its expectation of adherence to operating commitments are creating safor and improved operations at the GDPs. We also found that NRC's inspection approach and its inspection staff are highly regarded and are key to NRC's regulatory consistency.

' In addition, b& sed on our limited review, we identified several areas where the transition of oversight for the GDPs can provitle valuable lessons that may also

, be applicable to NRC's possible future exten al regulation of DOE facilities; (1) certification and/or licensing activities, (2) ' egulatory transition, (3) inspection program, and (4) evaluation and report writing. The balance of this special evaluation discusses those observations.

I. Cerfification anGbr Licensing Activities NRC can use the GDP transition process to identify those areas where regulatory guidance is critical to effective and efficient licensing and oversight of I other potential DOE facilities that the agency may ultimately regulate. For example, I

• A Standard Review Plan (SRP)* was not ready for the initial certification application. As a result, and in spite of meetings among the parties, USEC was not clear about what it should submit to NRC. NRC and USEC officials agreed that this caused difficulties and delays in the application review and was contributory to the rejection of the initial application. USEC plans to complete its recertification application by March 1998. Although the SRP would also be helpful to USEC for preparing that application, the SRP is not expected to be completed until December 1997. As such, a USEC licensing official stated the SRP will essentially be useful only for NRC staff review of the application.

I SRPs are prepared to provide guidar ce to staff reviewers in performing reviews of, among other things, applications for operating various types of facilities. The principle purpose of an SRP is to ensure the quality and uniformity of such reviews. It is also the I intent of SRPs to make information about regulatory matters widely available and to improve communication between NRC and industry, thereby increasing understanding of the review process. In actuality, both an SRP and a standard format and content guide I (which defines the topics and level of detail an applicant should cover in an application) should be available. The Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards intends to combine these two documents so we have simply rcferred to SRPs here.

olG/97E 19 Page 3

Valuable Lessons Can Be Learned Frorn the Regulatory Transition of the Gaseous Diffusion Plants The agency should also review its need and ability to provide timely SRPs and guidance in other, related areas such as AVLIS(5), backfit, and 10 CFR Part 95 Security Facility Approvaland Safeguarding of National Security Infortnation and Restricted Data. For instance, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards (NMSS) officials believe USEC w;ll begin submitting AVLIS licensing material to NRC in FY 1998 but are un'. Jrtain whether that SRP can be completed when needed.

10 CFR Part 76 could be impioved by providing some clarification. For example, a USEC licensing official felt that Part 76 could: (1) more clearly describe the types of programs, associated reviews, and threshold criteria for making changes to the certificate, and (2) provide clarification l

similar to that for reactors in 10 CFR Part 100 - Reactor Site Criteria -

describing important terms such as " exclusion area

• and ' low population zone.' A review of Part 76 activity should provide insights that would be useful for the revision, now underway, of 10 CFR Part 70 - Dornestic Licensing of Special Nuclear Material which will also apply to any future regulation of DOE facilities.

• It is important to consider and understand who will be the licensee at other DOE facilities. For example, will NRC license DOE and/or a DOE contractor that is operating a DOE facility? In addition, other questions g may arise. For instance, if DOE is a licensee at a facility, will NRC want a E senior-level DOE presence on site to ensure licensee involvement in the management of the facility? NRC can use the USEC certification to g provide insight into similar decisions in the future. 3 II. Regulatory Transition Identifying those parts of the transition carried out by USEC will allow NRC to identify areas that need to be addressed by another party in any future transitions. For example, NRC should evaluate its ability to develop or arrange technical training g needed for regulating future DOE facilities. For the GDPs, NRC staff g obtained much of this training from USEC. NRC must ensure that it will be able to obtain necessary technical training where an entity such as USEC does not exist.

I 5

USEC is currently developing AVLIS, atomic vapor laser isotope separation technology, as a successor to the gaseous diffusion process.

olG/97E 19 Page 4 I

l l

Valuable Lessons Can Be Leamed From the Regulatory Transition of the _ Gaseous Diffusion Plants

• The Regulatory Oversight Agreement (ROA)(') between DOE and USEC did not appear to work well. USEC's operating contractor, in particular, felt that DOE was not effective in simulating an *NRC type' regulatory l role. For instance, DOE retained consultants to assist in its effort.

However, even those individuals did not agree on now *NRC-type" regulation should be performed. If any interim regulatory arrangement l

I similar to the ROA will be used in possible future DOE facility transitions, NRC and DOE should determine how to improve that activity.

I

• USEC acted as an intermediary agency to coordinate the transition of regulatory authority, especially during the phase-in of 'NRC type"

! regulation (the ROA). USEC also voluntarily prepared analytical matrices ig of the relationship between NRC's Technical Safety Requirements and W DOE's Operational Safety Requirements in order to aid in the evt.luation of the technical operating basis of the plants. Such USEC activities should be considered in future transitions.

l The interaction between NRC and DOE during the GDP transition also provides E an excellent basis for exardning how any future transitions can be improved.

E For example, j DOE and NRC executed several memorandums of understanding (MOU) prior to NRC assuming jurisdiction over the GDPs. One MOU covered cooperation between the two agencies prior to NRC assuming overright, l

and one covered security responsibilities after NRC assumed oversight. I However, the MOU describing various responsibilities with respect to continued cooperation between NRC and DOE, and setting forth the framework for coordination of issues after NRC assumed oversight had not been completed as of September 1997, long after the certification was completed and after NRC had assumed jurisd'" ion over the plants.

' Whether the delay bad any substantive effect is not clear. However, identifying the difficulties in producing such agioements for the GDPs can provide direction for improving the process in any future endeavors.

lssues related to the determination of NRC and DOE regulatory boundaries will need to be addressed. For example, there were operating complications caused by the presence of both High Enriched Uranium, regulated by DOE, and Low Enriched Uranium, regulated by NRC, at the Portsmouth GDP. There may also be other regulatory questions concerning the impact of non-NRC regulated lease holders operating on DOE sites.

I The ROA was an agreement between DOE and USEC that provided, whenever possible, that DOE would attempt to facihtate the transition to comphance with requirements likely to be imposed by NRC at the end of an interim transition period, when NRC would assume regulatory jurisdiction.

OlG/97E 19 Page5 I

I Valuable i.essons Can Bb Learned From the Regulatory Transition of the Gaseous Diffusion Plants

• NRC's transition meetings and communications with the employees and the unions at the GDPs was a positive factor in successful transition to NRC regulatory oversight. Review of these communication efforts would provide a basis for successfully accomplishing this task in any future transitions.

The agency may be at"s to make improvements by reviewing financial information. For example,

.

• Evaluation of NRC's costs for completing transition activities for the GDPs would provide baseline information for future efforts and might indicate areas where performance could be improved For instance, one of the objectives of the DOE pilot program is to determine the cost of NRC regulation in ordct to extrapolate that cost to regulation of any additional DOE facilities.

• At the time of certification, the funding arrangement for special nuclear materials accounting with ths Nuclear Materials Management and Safeguards System (NMMSS) had not been finalized. Fuel cycle l

3 facilities' obligations to this fund are normally included in their annual fees and are a part of NRC's annual appropriation. However, USEC has been paying this money directly to.NMMSS or through DOE to NMMSS and the funds were not includec'ir NRC's FY 1997 or FY 1998 budget requests. NRC should ensuie that questions such as this are addressed prior to licensing any future facilities.

III. Inspection Program We believe NRC's inspection program, inspection personnel, and enforcement actions are NRC's front line effort for ensuring effective regulation. While NRC's inspection program is highly regarded by plant officials, a few improvements might be made that would also apply to future NRC regulation of DOE facilities.

For example,

• The core inspection plan for the GDPs will not be established until about March 1998 although NRC inspection personnel have been on slie at the GDPs since 1994. The agency could use this experience to identify methods it can use to focus a risk-based inspection program earlier in the transition process.

• NRC's Division of Facilities and Security (DFS) performed an inspection at the Paducah facility. This inspection was the division's first of a licensee and DFS personnel lacked some needed inspection and enforcement training. As a result, Region lli personnel had to provide olG/97E 19 Page 6 I

[

t L

_ Valuable Lessons Can Be Learned From the Regulatory Transition of the Gaseous Diffusion Plants additional assistance to that effort. The agency should ensure that the inspection program is consistent, and that staff who perform inspections meet certain minimuro qualifications.

< IV. Evaluation and Report Wnting i

Performing a lessons learned review of the GDP transition effort will provide r

valuable guidance for use during the DOE pilot program. For example, such a

( report could aid in establishing format and content standardc for future lessons teamed reports.

[

[

[

I L

[

f b

[

(

{

olG/97E 19 Page 7

yaiuabie Lessons can a teamed From the Regulatory Transition of the Gaseous Diffusion Plants CONCLUSIONS As we noted earlier, senior plant officials believe NRC's consistency of iegulation and its expectation of adherence to operating commitments are creati!.;; safer and improved operations at the GDPs. We also found that NRC's inspection approach and its inspection staff are highly regarded and are key to NRC's regulatory consistency. In addition, based on our limited review, we identified several areas where the transition of oversight for the GDPs can provide valuable lessons that may also be applicable to NRC's possible future external regulation of DOE facilities.

When we discussed the results of our review with NRC officials, they informed us a that NMSS staff had recently been instructed to conduct a lessons learned review of the transition of regulatory authority over the GDPs. NRC's reviewis E

projected to be completed about the end of December 1997.

I I

I I

olG/97E 19 Page 8

E L.,

Valuable Lessons Can Be Learned From the Regulatory Transition of the Gaseous Diffusion Plants I

L OBJECTIVES, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY r'

l The objectives of our review were to gain an understanding of ( ej the U.S. Nuclear Regulatcry Commission's (NRC) processes and management

[

controls for regulating the two gaseous diffusion plants (GDP), and (2) NRC's working relationships with other involved federal agencies.

E The scope of the review included the current status of NRC's program in addition L

to transition issues identified that would be applicable to future, extemal regulation of Department of Energy (DOE) facilities. Our review also encompassed the working relationships between NRC and (1) DOE, (2) the United States Enrichment Corporation (USEC), (3) the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, and (4) the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

To accomplish our objectives, we inter /iewed NRC officials in the Division of Fuel Cycle Safety and Safeguards, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and

& Safeguards, and in Region Ill. We visited the GDP located near Portsmouth, L Ohlu, to gain an understanding of the plant's operations and of NRC's on-site activities. At the plant, we interviewed NP,C's senior resident inspector, officials from USEC and USEC's operating contractor, Lockheed Martin Utility Services, L and a senior doe officiai. we aiso reviewee program office mission and ooai statements, policies and procedures, budgets, and other related docurnentation.

We conducted our review from July through September 1997.

E r

L E

F -

olG/97E-19 Page1

L Valuable Lessons Can Be Learned From the Regulatory Transition of the Gas,eous Diffusion Plants I

u MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS REPORT William D. McDowell

[ Team Leader Robert W. Moody

{ Senior Auditor Camilla Barror p Auditor L

i c

L E

E E

E E

[

[

OlG/97E 19 Page1 E

F

Vduable Lcssons Can Be Leamed From the Regulatory Transition of the Gaseous Diffusion PI:nts L

GLOSSARY: OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL PRODUCTS lWESTIGATIVE 1,

INVESTIGATIVE REPORT- WHITE COVER An Investigatue Report documents pertinent facts of a case and describes available evidence relevant to allegations against individuals, including aspects of an allegation not substantiated, investigative reports do not recommend disciplinary action against individual employees. Investigative reports are sensitive documents and contain information subject to the Privacy Act restrictions. Reports are given to officials and managers who have a need to know in order to property determine whether administrative action is warranted. The agency is expected to advise the OlG within 90 days of receiving the hvestigative report as to what disciplinary or other action has been taken in response to investigative report findings. ,

l

2. EVENTINQUIRY- GREEN COVER The Event inquiry is an investigative product that documents the examination of events or agency actions that do not focus specifnaliy on individual misconduct. These reports identify institutional weaknesses that led to or allowed a problem to occur. The agency is requested to advise the OlG of managerial initiatives taken in response to issues identified in these reports but tra;, king its recommendations is not required.

3.

MANAGEMENT IMPLICA TIONS REPORT (MIR) - MEMORANDUM MIRs provide a " ROOT CAUSE" analysis sufficient for managers to facilitate correction of problems and to avoid similar issues in the future. Agency tracking of recommer.dations is not required.

[ Auori

4. AUDITREPORT- BLUE COVER

{ An Audit Report is the documentation of the review, recommendations, and findings resulting from an objective assessment of a program, function, or activity. Audits follow a defined procedure that allows for agency review and comment on draft audit reports. The audit results are also reported in the OlG's

[ " Semiannual Report" to the Congress. Tracking of audit report recommendations and agency response is reyCred.

5.

r SPECIAL EVALUATION REPORT- BURGUNDY COVER L A Special Eva!uation Report documents the results of short-term, limited assessments. It provides an initial, quick response to a question or issue, and data to detarmine whether an in-depth independent audit should be planned. Agency tracking of recommendations is not required.

REGULATORY 6.

REGULATORY COMMENTARY- BROWN COVER Regulatory Commentary is the review of existing and proposed legictation, regulations, and policies so as to assist the agency in preventir.g and detecting fraud, waste, and abuse in programs snd operations.

Commentaries cite the IG Act as authority for the review, state the specific law, regula%n or policy

(. ,

examined, pertinent backgrounr* information considered and identifies OlG concems, observations, and objections. Significant observations regarding action or inaction by the agency are reported in the OlG Semlannual Report to Congress. Each report h'dicates whether a response is required.

[

OlG/97E 19 Page1 F