In the Matter of United States Enrichment Corporation; Paducah Gaseous Enrichment Plant; Confirmatory Order (Effective Immediately), 53494-53497 [2011-21902]
Download as PDF
53494
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 166 / Friday, August 26, 2011 / Notices
regarding the COL application or the
NRC Staff’s associated environmental
review that do fall within the scope of
the uncontested proceeding (i.e., issues
that are not within the scope of
admitted contentions), they should be
aware that many of the procedures and
rights applicable to the NRC’s contested
hearing process due to the inherently
adversarial nature of such proceedings
are not available with respect to this
uncontested hearing. Participation in
the NRC’s contested hearing process is
governed by 10 CFR 2.309 (for persons
or entities, including States, local
governments, or Indian Tribes, seeking
to file contentions of their own) and 10
CFR 2.315(c) (for interested States, local
governments, and Indian Tribes seeking
to participate with respect to
contentions filed by others).
Participation in this uncontested
hearing does not affect a State’s, local
government’s, or Indian Tribe’s right to
participate in the separate contested
hearing process.
The Commission recognizes that a
request to participate under 10 CFR
2.315(c) in proceedings regarding this
COL application was previously
dismissed on mootness grounds by an
NRC Atomic Safety and Licensing
Board. Such dismissals apply solely to
the contested portion of the proceeding,
and do not affect any rights to
participate in this uncontested portion
of the proceeding.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 22nd
day of August 2011.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Annette L. Vietti-Cook,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2011–21896 Filed 8–25–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[Docket No. 70–7001; Certificate No. GDP–
1; EA–11–056; NRC–2011–056]
In the Matter of United States
Enrichment Corporation; Paducah
Gaseous Enrichment Plant;
Confirmatory Order (Effective
Immediately)
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
I
The United States Enrichment
Corporation (USEC), a subsidiary of
USEC Inc., is the holder of the United
States Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC or the Commission) Certificates of
Compliance (COC) No. GDP–1 issued by
the NRC pursuant to Title 10 of the
Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR)
Part 76 on November 26, 1996, and
renewed on December 22, 2008. The
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:37 Aug 25, 2011
Jkt 223001
COC is set to expire on December 31,
2013. The certificate authorizes USEC to
operate the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion
Plant (Paducah), located near Paducah,
Kentucky. The certificate also
authorizes USEC to receive, and other
NRC licensees to transfer to USEC,
byproduct material, source material, or
special nuclear material to the extent
permitted under the COC.
This Confirmatory Order is the result
of an agreement reached during an
alternative dispute resolution (ADR)
mediation session conducted on July 22,
2011.
II
On March 17, 2010, an incident
occurred at the Paducah facility
involving the spread of contamination
while operators were involved in the
routine activity of swapping cylinders
from the enrichment cascade in the
337A feed building. USEC-Paducah
management promptly initiated an
investigation to review the incident.
On July 14, 2010, the NRC’s Office of
Investigations (OI) initiated an
investigation (OI Case No. 2–2010–037)
regarding activities at the Paducah
facility. The purpose of the investigation
was to determine whether an operator
willfully violated applicable radiation
protection procedures.
Based on the evidence developed
during the NRC investigation, the NRC
staff identified one apparent violation,
as documented in the NRC’s letter to
USEC-Paducah dated May 18, 2011. The
apparent violation involved the failure
to adhere to the requirements of USECPaducah Procedure UE2–HP–RP1030,
Rev. 4, ‘‘Conduct of Radiological
Operations,’’ which requires that
personnel shall properly perform a
whole body frisk when exiting from
areas controlled for removable
contamination, unless otherwise
authorized by Health Physics. USECPaducah is required by Certificate GDP–
1 to implement the procedure in
accordance with Technical Safety
Requirements 3.9.1, ‘‘Procedures
Scope,’’ which requires, in part, that
written procedures shall be
implemented to cover activities listed in
Appendix A to Safety Analysis Report
(SAR) Section 6.11. Appendix A to SAR
6.11, ‘‘Procedures,’’ requires, in part, the
licensee to implement procedures to
cover radiation protection activities. In
this case, an operator failed to properly
use a radiation monitor before exiting
the contamination control zone (CCZ),
and spread contamination of high
activity level to the Operations
Monitoring Room, an area adjacent to
the CCZ and inside the 337A feed
building.
PO 00000
Frm 00098
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
The NRC’s letter of May 18, 2011,
preliminarily concluded that the cause
of the violation was due, in part, to the
deliberate misconduct of an operator at
the Paducah facility.
III
On July 22, 2011, the NRC and USEC
met in an ADR session mediated by a
professional mediator, which was
arranged through Cornell University’s
Institute on Conflict Resolution. ADR is
a process in which a neutral mediator
with no decision-making authority
assists the parties in reaching an
agreement or resolving any differences
regarding their dispute. This
confirmatory order is issued pursuant to
the agreement reached during the ADR
process. The elements of the agreement
consist of the following:
1. USEC-Paducah agreed that the
issue described in Section II above
represents a violation of Certificate
GDP–1, Technical Safety Requirements
3.9.1, and USEC-Paducah Procedure
UE2–HP–RP1030, in that an employee
by-passed a radiation monitor and
exited the CCZ. USEC-Paducah also
agreed with the NRC’s conclusion that
the violation was due, in part, to the
deliberate misconduct of the employee
at the Paducah facility.
2. At the ADR session, USEC-Paducah
acknowledged the seriousness
associated with the procedural violation
and the deliberate misconduct of its
employee. The incident caused the
spread of contamination and constituted
a serious violation of its procedures,
standards, and expectations. The
potential consequences of the incident
could have been more significant,
because under different circumstances,
contamination could have been spread
to other areas of the facility, and off-site.
The incident prompted USEC to
conduct a thorough investigation of the
event, a determination of the extent of
condition, and a root cause evaluation.
USEC’s investigation also included a
review of the circumstances that took
place during the routine operational
activities of swapping cylinders to the
enrichment cascade that resulted in the
existence of contaminated material. In
addition, USEC investigated the
operational and procedural aspects that
established the conditions that led to
the spread of contamination in the
autoclave facility.
3. In response to the violation
described above, USEC-Paducah
implemented numerous corrective
actions and enhancements to address
the incident and to prevent recurrence,
including but not limited to:
a. A prompt investigation into the
incident, and the initiation of its
E:\FR\FM\26AUN1.SGM
26AUN1
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 166 / Friday, August 26, 2011 / Notices
disciplinary process to address the
conduct of the employee involved;
b. Decontamination and restoration of
the normal CCZ boundaries in the C–
337A building;
c. The placement of an entry in the
Daily Operating Instructions requiring
Operators to wear full anticontamination clothing while changing
cylinders in the C–337A building,
pending the results of the Company’s
investigation;
d. Issuance of a ‘‘Required Reading’’
to provide uranium hexafluoride
handling personnel initial information
about the contamination event;
e. Issuance of a long-term order
requiring Operators to check for
abnormal pressure spikes before
disconnecting a cylinder (to prevent a
similar release of contamination);
f. The conduct of briefings about the
contamination event with all HP
Technicians.
g. The conduct of a Stand Down with
all Operations crews to discuss the
contamination event;
h. The operators involved in the
incident were required to take
Radworker Refresher training;
i. Issuance of a second ‘‘Required
Reading’’ to provide an update to the
immediate Required Reading about: (a)
the contamination event; and (b) the
reasons for the issuance of the long-term
order described above;
j. Issuance of a second long-term order
requiring Area Control Room Operators
to verify the feed valve on the empty
cylinder is closed before opening the
feed valve on the full cylinder when
swapping feed cylinders that have
emptied;
k. Clarification of management’s
expectation that supervisors document
in the Company’s Corrective Action
Program when an unexpected pressure
spike occurs;
l. The conduct of briefings of all plant
personnel by management in each
Organization about this contamination
event, including reinforcement of the
potential consequences of failing to
comply with radiological protection
requirements;
m. USEC revised procedure CP4–CO–
CN2045a to require Area Control Room
operators to ensure the feed valve on the
empty cylinder is closed before opening
the feed valve on the full cylinder. The
revision also included a note explaining
the significance of the valve sequencing
from a potential contamination
perspective. USEC also revised CP4–
CO–CN2045a to require the vaporizer
operators to check for abnormal
pressure spikes before disconnecting a
cylinder;
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:37 Aug 25, 2011
Jkt 223001
n. The General Manager and Plant
Manager conducted ‘‘all hands’’
meetings to communicate a zero
tolerance for willfully violating or
bypassing safety requirements;
o. USEC reviewed and evaluated all
reported cylinder change pressure
spikes for the nine-month period ending
December 31, 2010, focusing on
operating parameters of the autoclaves
involved, including a discussion of
valving operations supporting the
cylinder change. The review found one
similar pressure spike, but the cause
was a plugged feed header in C–333, not
a valving error. Personnel used
enhanced HP monitoring when this
cylinder was disconnected and no
release of radioactive particulates or
contamination occurred;
p. USEC completed an effectiveness
review of the above corrective actions
on February 3, 2011, which concluded
that the corrective actions were
effective.
4. In addition to the actions
completed by USEC as discussed above,
USEC agreed to additional corrective
actions and enhancements, as fully
delineated in Section V of this
Confirmatory Order.
5. At the ADR session, the NRC and
USEC agreed that the above elements
will be incorporated into a Confirmatory
Order. The resulting Confirmatory Order
will be considered by the NRC for any
assessment of USEC-Paducah, as
appropriate.
6. USEC-Paducah agrees to waive its
hearing rights for the issues documented
in the Confirmatory Order.
7. In consideration of the corrective
actions and commitments delineated in
Section III.3 and Section V, the NRC
agrees to not issue a Notice of Violation,
and refrain from proposing a civil
penalty for all matters discussed in the
NRC’s letter to USEC of May 18, 2011
(EA–11–056). This completes the
Agency’s enforcement action with
respect to USEC-Paducah regarding all
matters discussed in the NRC’s letter to
USEC of May 18, 2011.
8. This agreement is binding upon
successors and assigns of USEC.
On August 11, 2011, USEC consented
to issuance of this Order with the
commitments, as described in Section V
below. USEC further agreed that this
Order is to be effective upon issuance
and that it has waived its right to a
hearing.
IV
Since USEC has completed the
actions as delineated in Section III.3,
and agreed to take the actions as set
forth in Section V, the NRC has
PO 00000
Frm 00099
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
53495
concluded that its concerns can be
resolved through issuance of this Order.
I find that USEC’s commitments as set
forth in Section V are acceptable and
necessary and conclude that with these
commitments the public health and
safety are reasonably assured. In view of
the foregoing, I have determined that
public health and safety require that
USEC’s commitments be confirmed by
this Order. Based on the above and
USEC’s consent, this Order is
immediately effective upon issuance.
V
Accordingly, pursuant to Sections
104b, 161b, 161i, 161o, 182 and 186 of
the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as
amended, and the Commission’s
regulations in 10 CFR 2.202 and 10 CFR
Part 76, it is hereby ordered, effective
immediately, that Certificate No. GDP–
1 be modified as follows:
a. USEC will use multiple site-wide
communication tools (e.g., ‘‘All Hands’’
meetings and written communications)
to emphasize safety culture to
employees and contractors at Paducah
and the importance of using human
error prevention tools, the need to
comply with job rules, regulations, and
procedures, and the potential
consequences when compliance does
not occur. The first of these
communications will occur within 60
days of the issuance of the Confirmatory
Order.
b. Within four months of the issuance
of the Confirmatory Order, USEC will
develop and begin implementation of a
required training program at Paducah
that describes the requirements of 10
CFR 76.9, Completeness and Accuracy
of Information, and 10 CFR 76.10,
Deliberate Misconduct, to all
employees. This training is to include
the potential consequences individuals
may experience for willful violations of
10 CFR 76.10.
c. Within six months of the issuance
of the Confirmatory Order, USEC will
enhance new employee orientation and
General Employee Training at Paducah
to ensure that personnel clearly
understand that deliberate acts of noncompliance with regulations or
procedures will not be tolerated and
could result in a significant disciplinary
action up to and including termination.
d. USEC will expand the
independent, Safety Conscious Work
Environment assessment, required by
Confirmatory Order EA–06–140, Section
V.III, dated August 13, 2009, to include
an assessment of the safety culture
components of decision making and
work practices. Particular attention shall
be focused on the effectiveness of
corrective actions associated with the
E:\FR\FM\26AUN1.SGM
26AUN1
53496
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 166 / Friday, August 26, 2011 / Notices
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
March 17, 2010 incident in the areas of:
(1) training; (2) the use of error
prevention methods; and (3) procedural
adherence. The effectiveness review
shall, at a minimum, include direct
observation of facility staff, and shall
include the benchmarking of other
nuclear industry facilities in the area of
error prevention.
e. Within three months of USEC’s
receipt of the report of the Safety
Conscious Work Environment
assessment, USEC shall brief the NRC
on the results of the assessment and any
planned corrective actions arising out of
the assessment. During this briefing,
USEC shall also provide the NRC with
the results of its efforts to identify
appropriate metrics to measure site
safety culture.
The Regional Administrator, NRC
Region II, may relax or rescind, in
writing, any of the above conditions
upon a showing by USEC of good cause.
VI
Any person adversely affected by this
Confirmatory Order, other than USEC,
may request a hearing within 20 days of
its publication in the Federal Register.
Where good cause is shown,
consideration will be given to extending
the time to request a hearing. A request
for extension of time must be made in
writing to the Director, Office of
Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555,
and include a statement of good cause
for the extension.
All documents filed in NRC
adjudicatory proceedings, including a
request for hearing, a petition for leave
to intervene, any motion or other
document filed in the proceeding prior
to the submission of a request for
hearing or petition to intervene, and
documents filed by interested
governmental entities participating
under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in
accordance with the NRC E-Filing rule
(72 FR 49139, August 28, 2007). The EFiling process requires participants to
submit and serve all adjudicatory
documents over the Internet, or in some
cases to mail copies on electronic
storage media. Participants may not
submit paper copies of their filings
unless they seek an exemption in
accordance with the procedures
described below.
To comply with the procedural
requirements of E-Filing, at least ten
(10) days prior to the filing deadline, the
participant should contact the Office of
the Secretary by e-mail at
hearing.docket@nrc.gov, or by telephone
at 301–415–1677, to request (1) a digital
ID certificate, which allows the
participant (or its counsel or
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:37 Aug 25, 2011
Jkt 223001
representative) to digitally sign
documents and access the E-Submittal
server for any proceeding in which it is
participating; and (2) advise the
Secretary that the participant will be
submitting a request or petition for
hearing (even in instances in which the
participant, or its counsel or
representative, already holds an NRCissued digital ID certificate). Based upon
this information, the Secretary will
establish an electronic docket for the
hearing in this proceeding if the
Secretary has not already established an
electronic docket.
Information about applying for a
digital ID certificate is available on
NRC’s public Web site at https://
www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/
apply-certificates.html. System
requirements for accessing the ESubmittal server are detailed in NRC’s
‘‘Guidance for Electronic Submission,’’
which is available on the agency’s
public Web site at https://www.nrc.gov/
site-help/e-submittals.html. Participants
may attempt to use other software not
listed on the Web site, but should note
that the NRC’s E-Filing system does not
support unlisted software, and the NRC
Meta System Help Desk will not be able
to offer assistance in using unlisted
software.
If a participant is electronically
submitting a document to the NRC in
accordance with the E-Filing rule, the
participant must file the document
using the NRC’s online, Web-based
submission form. In order to serve
documents through the Electronic
Information Exchange (EIE), users will
be required to install a Web browser
plug-in from the NRC Web site. Further
information on the Web-based
submission form, including the
installation of the Web browser plug-in,
is available on the NRC’s public Web
site at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/esubmittals.html.
Once a participant has obtained a
digital ID certificate and a docket has
been created, the participant can then
submit a request for hearing or petition
for leave to intervene. Submissions
should be in Portable Document Format
(PDF) in accordance with NRC guidance
available on the NRC public Web site at
https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/esubmittals.html. A filing is considered
complete at the time the documents are
submitted through the NRC’s E-Filing
system. To be timely, an electronic
filing must be submitted to the E-Filing
system no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern
Time on the due date. Upon receipt of
a transmission, the E-Filing system
time-stamps the document and sends
the submitter an e-mail notice
confirming receipt of the document. The
PO 00000
Frm 00100
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E-Filing system also distributes an email notice that provides access to the
document to the NRC Office of the
General Counsel and any others who
have advised the Office of the Secretary
that they wish to participate in the
proceeding, so that the filer need not
serve the documents on those
participants separately. Therefore,
applicants and other participants (or
their counsel or representative) must
apply for and receive a digital ID
certificate before a hearing request/
petition to intervene is filed so that they
can obtain access to the document via
the E-Filing system.
A person filing electronically using
the agency’s adjudicatory E-Filing
system may seek assistance by
contacting the NRC Meta System Help
Desk through the ‘‘Contact Us’’ link
located on the NRC Web site at https://
www.nrc.gov/site-help/esubmittals.html, by e-mail at
MSHD.Resource@nrc.gov, or by a tollfree call at 866–672–7640. The NRC
Meta System Help Desk is available
between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern
Time, Monday through Friday,
excluding government holidays.
Participants who believe that they
have a good cause for not submitting
documents electronically must file an
exemption request, in accordance with
10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper
filing requesting authorization to
continue to submit documents in paper
format. Such filings must be submitted
by: (1) First class mail addressed to the
Office of the Secretary of the
Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555–
0001, Attention: Rulemaking and
Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier,
express mail, or expedited delivery
service to the Office of the Secretary,
Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North,
11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville,
Maryland 20852, Attention: Rulemaking
and Adjudications Staff. Participants
filing a document in this manner are
responsible for serving the document on
all other participants. Filing is
considered complete by first-class mail
as of the time of deposit in the mail, or
by courier, express mail, or expedited
delivery service upon depositing the
document with the provider of the
service. A presiding officer, having
granted an exemption request from
using E-Filing, may require a participant
or party to use E-Filing if the presiding
officer subsequently determines that the
reason for granting the exemption from
use of E-Filing no longer exists.
Documents submitted in adjudicatory
proceedings will appear in NRC’s
electronic hearing docket which is
available to the public at https://
E:\FR\FM\26AUN1.SGM
26AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 166 / Friday, August 26, 2011 / Notices
ehd1.nrc.gov/EHD/, unless excluded
pursuant to an order of the Commission,
or the presiding officer. Participants are
requested not to include personal
privacy information, such as social
security numbers, home addresses, or
home phone numbers in their filings,
unless an NRC regulation or other law
requires submission of such
information. With respect to
copyrighted works, except for limited
excerpts that serve the purpose of the
adjudicatory filings and would
constitute a Fair Use application,
participants are requested not to include
copyrighted materials in their
submission.
If a person (other than USEC) requests
a hearing, that person shall set forth
with particularity the manner in which
his interest is adversely affected by this
Confirmatory Order and shall address
the criteria set forth in 10 CFR 2.309(d)
and (f).
If a hearing is requested by a person
whose interest is adversely affected, the
Commission will issue an order
designating the time and place of any
hearing. If a hearing is held, the issue to
be considered at such hearing shall be
whether this Confirmatory Order should
be sustained.
In the absence of any request for
hearing, or written approval of an
extension of time in which to request a
hearing, the provisions specified in
Section V above shall be final 20 days
from the date this Confirmatory Order is
published in the Federal Register
without further order or proceedings. If
an extension of time for requesting a
hearing has been approved, the
provisions specified in Section V shall
be final when the extension expires if a
hearing request has not been received.
A request for hearing shall not stay
the immediate effectiveness of this
order.
Dated this 17th day of August 2011.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Leonard D. Wert, Jr.,
Deputy Regional Administrator for
Operations.
[FR Doc. 2011–21902 Filed 8–25–11; 8:45 am]
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
BILLING CODE P
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:37 Aug 25, 2011
Jkt 223001
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[NRC–2011–0194; Docket Nos. 50–335 and
50–389]
Florida Power and Light Company; St.
Lucie Plant, Units 1 and 2;
Environmental Assessment and
Finding of No Significant Impact
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) is considering
issuance of an exemption from Title 10
of the Code of Federal Regulations (10
CFR) part 50, Appendix G, Section
IV.A.2, for Facility Operating License
Nos. DPR–67 and NPF–16, issued to
Florida Power and Light Company, et al.
(the licensee, FPL), for operation of St.
Lucie Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2,
located on Hutchinson Island in St.
Lucie County, Florida. Therefore, as
required by 10 CFR 51.21, the NRC
performed an environmental
assessment. Based on the results of the
environmental assessment, the NRC is
issuing a finding of no significant
impact.
Environmental Assessment
Identification of the Proposed Action
The proposed action would approve
an exemption for St. Lucie Nuclear
Plant, Units 1 and 2, from certain
requirements of 10 CFR part 50,
Appendix G, ‘‘Fracture Toughness
Requirements.’’ Specifically, the
licensee requests approval of an
exemption from the requirements of 10
CFR part 50, Appendix G, Section
IV.A.2, ‘‘Pressure-Temperature Limits
and Minimum Temperature
Requirements.’’
The methodology developed by
Combustion Engineering to calculate
reactor coolant system (RCS) pressuretemperature (P–T) curves, heatup and
cooldown limits and low temperature
overpressure protection (LTOP)
requirements is documented in topical
report CE NPSD–683–A (Agencywide
Documents Access and Management
System (ADAMS) Accession No.
ML011350387). The staff noted in its
March 16, 2001 safety evaluation for
this report that: ‘‘The CE [Combustion
Engineering] NSSS [nuclear steam
supply system] methodology does not
invoke the methods in the 1995 edition
of Appendix G to the Code for
calculating KIM factors, and instead
applies FEM [finite element modeling]
methods for estimating the KIM factors
for the RPV shell * * * Except for
loading inputs, the staff has determined
that the KIM calculation methods apply
FEM modeling that is similar to that
used for the determination of the KIT
PO 00000
Frm 00101
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
53497
factors. The staff has also determined
that there is only a slight nonconservative difference between the P–
T limits generated from the 1989 edition
of Appendix G to the Code and those
generated from CE NSSS methodology
as documented in Evaluation No. 063–
PENG–ER–096, Revision 00. The staff
considers this difference to be
reasonable and should be consistent
with the expected improvements in P–
T generation methods that have been
incorporated into the 1995 edition of
Appendix G to the Code. The staff
therefore concludes that the CE NSSS
methodology for generating P–T limits
is equivalent to the current methodology
in the 1995 edition of Appendix G to the
Code, and is acceptable for P–T limit
applications.’’ The staff has extended
this conclusion to the Section XI,
Appendix G methodology of Code
Editions through the 2004 Edition.
The staff has advised licensees to
specify whether membrane stress
intensity factors due to pressure
loading, KIM, are determined by
obtaining a closed-form solution (per
the American Society of Mechanical
Engineers (ASME) Code, Section XI,
Appendix G) or determined by applying
finite element modeling methods (per
CE NPSD–683–A, Revision 6). Stress
intensity values, KIM, for St. Lucie,
Units 1 and 2 are calculated using the
CE NSSS finite element modeling
methods.
The Need for the Proposed Action
FPL is implementing the methodology
documented in Topical Report CE
NPSD–683–A to calculate the RCS
pressure-temperature curves and LTOP
limits for St. Lucie Nuclear Plant, Units
1 and 2. This methodology uses an FEM
calculation that, although similar to the
ASME Section XI requirements, is
slightly less conservative. Section
IV.A.2 of Appendix G to 10 CFR Part 50
states, ‘‘The pressure-temperature limits
identified as ‘ASME Appendix G limits’
in Table 3 require that the limits must
be at least as conservative as limits
obtained by following the methods of
analysis and the margins of safety of
Appendix G of Section XI of the ASME
Code.’’ Therefore, the use of the
methodology documented in topical
report CE NPSD–683–A requires an
exemption from 10 CFR part 50,
Appendix G, Section IV.A.2, in order to
implement that methodology with a
license granted under 10 CFR part 50.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed
Action
The NRC staff has completed its
environmental assessment of the
proposed exemption and has concluded
E:\FR\FM\26AUN1.SGM
26AUN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 166 (Friday, August 26, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53494-53497]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-21902]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 70-7001; Certificate No. GDP-1; EA-11-056; NRC-2011-056]
In the Matter of United States Enrichment Corporation; Paducah
Gaseous Enrichment Plant; Confirmatory Order (Effective Immediately)
I
The United States Enrichment Corporation (USEC), a subsidiary of
USEC Inc., is the holder of the United States Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC or the Commission) Certificates of Compliance (COC) No.
GDP-1 issued by the NRC pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (10 CFR) Part 76 on November 26, 1996, and renewed on
December 22, 2008. The COC is set to expire on December 31, 2013. The
certificate authorizes USEC to operate the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion
Plant (Paducah), located near Paducah, Kentucky. The certificate also
authorizes USEC to receive, and other NRC licensees to transfer to
USEC, byproduct material, source material, or special nuclear material
to the extent permitted under the COC.
This Confirmatory Order is the result of an agreement reached
during an alternative dispute resolution (ADR) mediation session
conducted on July 22, 2011.
II
On March 17, 2010, an incident occurred at the Paducah facility
involving the spread of contamination while operators were involved in
the routine activity of swapping cylinders from the enrichment cascade
in the 337A feed building. USEC-Paducah management promptly initiated
an investigation to review the incident.
On July 14, 2010, the NRC's Office of Investigations (OI) initiated
an investigation (OI Case No. 2-2010-037) regarding activities at the
Paducah facility. The purpose of the investigation was to determine
whether an operator willfully violated applicable radiation protection
procedures.
Based on the evidence developed during the NRC investigation, the
NRC staff identified one apparent violation, as documented in the NRC's
letter to USEC-Paducah dated May 18, 2011. The apparent violation
involved the failure to adhere to the requirements of USEC-Paducah
Procedure UE2-HP-RP1030, Rev. 4, ``Conduct of Radiological
Operations,'' which requires that personnel shall properly perform a
whole body frisk when exiting from areas controlled for removable
contamination, unless otherwise authorized by Health Physics. USEC-
Paducah is required by Certificate GDP-1 to implement the procedure in
accordance with Technical Safety Requirements 3.9.1, ``Procedures
Scope,'' which requires, in part, that written procedures shall be
implemented to cover activities listed in Appendix A to Safety Analysis
Report (SAR) Section 6.11. Appendix A to SAR 6.11, ``Procedures,''
requires, in part, the licensee to implement procedures to cover
radiation protection activities. In this case, an operator failed to
properly use a radiation monitor before exiting the contamination
control zone (CCZ), and spread contamination of high activity level to
the Operations Monitoring Room, an area adjacent to the CCZ and inside
the 337A feed building.
The NRC's letter of May 18, 2011, preliminarily concluded that the
cause of the violation was due, in part, to the deliberate misconduct
of an operator at the Paducah facility.
III
On July 22, 2011, the NRC and USEC met in an ADR session mediated
by a professional mediator, which was arranged through Cornell
University's Institute on Conflict Resolution. ADR is a process in
which a neutral mediator with no decision-making authority assists the
parties in reaching an agreement or resolving any differences regarding
their dispute. This confirmatory order is issued pursuant to the
agreement reached during the ADR process. The elements of the agreement
consist of the following:
1. USEC-Paducah agreed that the issue described in Section II above
represents a violation of Certificate GDP-1, Technical Safety
Requirements 3.9.1, and USEC-Paducah Procedure UE2-HP-RP1030, in that
an employee by-passed a radiation monitor and exited the CCZ. USEC-
Paducah also agreed with the NRC's conclusion that the violation was
due, in part, to the deliberate misconduct of the employee at the
Paducah facility.
2. At the ADR session, USEC-Paducah acknowledged the seriousness
associated with the procedural violation and the deliberate misconduct
of its employee. The incident caused the spread of contamination and
constituted a serious violation of its procedures, standards, and
expectations. The potential consequences of the incident could have
been more significant, because under different circumstances,
contamination could have been spread to other areas of the facility,
and off-site. The incident prompted USEC to conduct a thorough
investigation of the event, a determination of the extent of condition,
and a root cause evaluation. USEC's investigation also included a
review of the circumstances that took place during the routine
operational activities of swapping cylinders to the enrichment cascade
that resulted in the existence of contaminated material. In addition,
USEC investigated the operational and procedural aspects that
established the conditions that led to the spread of contamination in
the autoclave facility.
3. In response to the violation described above, USEC-Paducah
implemented numerous corrective actions and enhancements to address the
incident and to prevent recurrence, including but not limited to:
a. A prompt investigation into the incident, and the initiation of
its
[[Page 53495]]
disciplinary process to address the conduct of the employee involved;
b. Decontamination and restoration of the normal CCZ boundaries in
the C-337A building;
c. The placement of an entry in the Daily Operating Instructions
requiring Operators to wear full anti-contamination clothing while
changing cylinders in the C-337A building, pending the results of the
Company's investigation;
d. Issuance of a ``Required Reading'' to provide uranium
hexafluoride handling personnel initial information about the
contamination event;
e. Issuance of a long-term order requiring Operators to check for
abnormal pressure spikes before disconnecting a cylinder (to prevent a
similar release of contamination);
f. The conduct of briefings about the contamination event with all
HP Technicians.
g. The conduct of a Stand Down with all Operations crews to discuss
the contamination event;
h. The operators involved in the incident were required to take
Radworker Refresher training;
i. Issuance of a second ``Required Reading'' to provide an update
to the immediate Required Reading about: (a) the contamination event;
and (b) the reasons for the issuance of the long-term order described
above;
j. Issuance of a second long-term order requiring Area Control Room
Operators to verify the feed valve on the empty cylinder is closed
before opening the feed valve on the full cylinder when swapping feed
cylinders that have emptied;
k. Clarification of management's expectation that supervisors
document in the Company's Corrective Action Program when an unexpected
pressure spike occurs;
l. The conduct of briefings of all plant personnel by management in
each Organization about this contamination event, including
reinforcement of the potential consequences of failing to comply with
radiological protection requirements;
m. USEC revised procedure CP4-CO-CN2045a to require Area Control
Room operators to ensure the feed valve on the empty cylinder is closed
before opening the feed valve on the full cylinder. The revision also
included a note explaining the significance of the valve sequencing
from a potential contamination perspective. USEC also revised CP4-CO-
CN2045a to require the vaporizer operators to check for abnormal
pressure spikes before disconnecting a cylinder;
n. The General Manager and Plant Manager conducted ``all hands''
meetings to communicate a zero tolerance for willfully violating or
bypassing safety requirements;
o. USEC reviewed and evaluated all reported cylinder change
pressure spikes for the nine-month period ending December 31, 2010,
focusing on operating parameters of the autoclaves involved, including
a discussion of valving operations supporting the cylinder change. The
review found one similar pressure spike, but the cause was a plugged
feed header in C-333, not a valving error. Personnel used enhanced HP
monitoring when this cylinder was disconnected and no release of
radioactive particulates or contamination occurred;
p. USEC completed an effectiveness review of the above corrective
actions on February 3, 2011, which concluded that the corrective
actions were effective.
4. In addition to the actions completed by USEC as discussed above,
USEC agreed to additional corrective actions and enhancements, as fully
delineated in Section V of this Confirmatory Order.
5. At the ADR session, the NRC and USEC agreed that the above
elements will be incorporated into a Confirmatory Order. The resulting
Confirmatory Order will be considered by the NRC for any assessment of
USEC-Paducah, as appropriate.
6. USEC-Paducah agrees to waive its hearing rights for the issues
documented in the Confirmatory Order.
7. In consideration of the corrective actions and commitments
delineated in Section III.3 and Section V, the NRC agrees to not issue
a Notice of Violation, and refrain from proposing a civil penalty for
all matters discussed in the NRC's letter to USEC of May 18, 2011 (EA-
11-056). This completes the Agency's enforcement action with respect to
USEC-Paducah regarding all matters discussed in the NRC's letter to
USEC of May 18, 2011.
8. This agreement is binding upon successors and assigns of USEC.
On August 11, 2011, USEC consented to issuance of this Order with
the commitments, as described in Section V below. USEC further agreed
that this Order is to be effective upon issuance and that it has waived
its right to a hearing.
IV
Since USEC has completed the actions as delineated in Section
III.3, and agreed to take the actions as set forth in Section V, the
NRC has concluded that its concerns can be resolved through issuance of
this Order.
I find that USEC's commitments as set forth in Section V are
acceptable and necessary and conclude that with these commitments the
public health and safety are reasonably assured. In view of the
foregoing, I have determined that public health and safety require that
USEC's commitments be confirmed by this Order. Based on the above and
USEC's consent, this Order is immediately effective upon issuance.
V
Accordingly, pursuant to Sections 104b, 161b, 161i, 161o, 182 and
186 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the Commission's
regulations in 10 CFR 2.202 and 10 CFR Part 76, it is hereby ordered,
effective immediately, that Certificate No. GDP-1 be modified as
follows:
a. USEC will use multiple site-wide communication tools (e.g.,
``All Hands'' meetings and written communications) to emphasize safety
culture to employees and contractors at Paducah and the importance of
using human error prevention tools, the need to comply with job rules,
regulations, and procedures, and the potential consequences when
compliance does not occur. The first of these communications will occur
within 60 days of the issuance of the Confirmatory Order.
b. Within four months of the issuance of the Confirmatory Order,
USEC will develop and begin implementation of a required training
program at Paducah that describes the requirements of 10 CFR 76.9,
Completeness and Accuracy of Information, and 10 CFR 76.10, Deliberate
Misconduct, to all employees. This training is to include the potential
consequences individuals may experience for willful violations of 10
CFR 76.10.
c. Within six months of the issuance of the Confirmatory Order,
USEC will enhance new employee orientation and General Employee
Training at Paducah to ensure that personnel clearly understand that
deliberate acts of non-compliance with regulations or procedures will
not be tolerated and could result in a significant disciplinary action
up to and including termination.
d. USEC will expand the independent, Safety Conscious Work
Environment assessment, required by Confirmatory Order EA-06-140,
Section V.III, dated August 13, 2009, to include an assessment of the
safety culture components of decision making and work practices.
Particular attention shall be focused on the effectiveness of
corrective actions associated with the
[[Page 53496]]
March 17, 2010 incident in the areas of: (1) training; (2) the use of
error prevention methods; and (3) procedural adherence. The
effectiveness review shall, at a minimum, include direct observation of
facility staff, and shall include the benchmarking of other nuclear
industry facilities in the area of error prevention.
e. Within three months of USEC's receipt of the report of the
Safety Conscious Work Environment assessment, USEC shall brief the NRC
on the results of the assessment and any planned corrective actions
arising out of the assessment. During this briefing, USEC shall also
provide the NRC with the results of its efforts to identify appropriate
metrics to measure site safety culture.
The Regional Administrator, NRC Region II, may relax or rescind, in
writing, any of the above conditions upon a showing by USEC of good
cause.
VI
Any person adversely affected by this Confirmatory Order, other
than USEC, may request a hearing within 20 days of its publication in
the Federal Register. Where good cause is shown, consideration will be
given to extending the time to request a hearing. A request for
extension of time must be made in writing to the Director, Office of
Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555,
and include a statement of good cause for the extension.
All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a
request for hearing, a petition for leave to intervene, any motion or
other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a
request for hearing or petition to intervene, and documents filed by
interested governmental entities participating under 10 CFR 2.315(c),
must be filed in accordance with the NRC E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139,
August 28, 2007). The E-Filing process requires participants to submit
and serve all adjudicatory documents over the Internet, or in some
cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Participants may not
submit paper copies of their filings unless they seek an exemption in
accordance with the procedures described below.
To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least
ten (10) days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should
contact the Office of the Secretary by e-mail at
hearing.docket@nrc.gov, or by telephone at 301-415-1677, to request (1)
a digital ID certificate, which allows the participant (or its counsel
or representative) to digitally sign documents and access the E-
Submittal server for any proceeding in which it is participating; and
(2) advise the Secretary that the participant will be submitting a
request or petition for hearing (even in instances in which the
participant, or its counsel or representative, already holds an NRC-
issued digital ID certificate). Based upon this information, the
Secretary will establish an electronic docket for the hearing in this
proceeding if the Secretary has not already established an electronic
docket.
Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is
available on NRC's public Web site at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/apply-certificates.html. System requirements for accessing
the E-Submittal server are detailed in NRC's ``Guidance for Electronic
Submission,'' which is available on the agency's public Web site at
https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. Participants may
attempt to use other software not listed on the Web site, but should
note that the NRC's E-Filing system does not support unlisted software,
and the NRC Meta System Help Desk will not be able to offer assistance
in using unlisted software.
If a participant is electronically submitting a document to the NRC
in accordance with the E-Filing rule, the participant must file the
document using the NRC's online, Web-based submission form. In order to
serve documents through the Electronic Information Exchange (EIE),
users will be required to install a Web browser plug-in from the NRC
Web site. Further information on the Web-based submission form,
including the installation of the Web browser plug-in, is available on
the NRC's public Web site at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html.
Once a participant has obtained a digital ID certificate and a
docket has been created, the participant can then submit a request for
hearing or petition for leave to intervene. Submissions should be in
Portable Document Format (PDF) in accordance with NRC guidance
available on the NRC public Web site at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. A filing is considered complete at the time the
documents are submitted through the NRC's E-Filing system. To be
timely, an electronic filing must be submitted to the E-Filing system
no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date. Upon receipt of
a transmission, the E-Filing system time-stamps the document and sends
the submitter an e-mail notice confirming receipt of the document. The
E-Filing system also distributes an e-mail notice that provides access
to the document to the NRC Office of the General Counsel and any others
who have advised the Office of the Secretary that they wish to
participate in the proceeding, so that the filer need not serve the
documents on those participants separately. Therefore, applicants and
other participants (or their counsel or representative) must apply for
and receive a digital ID certificate before a hearing request/petition
to intervene is filed so that they can obtain access to the document
via the E-Filing system.
A person filing electronically using the agency's adjudicatory E-
Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC Meta System
Help Desk through the ``Contact Us'' link located on the NRC Web site
at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html, by e-mail at
MSHD.Resource@nrc.gov, or by a toll-free call at 866-672-7640. The NRC
Meta System Help Desk is available between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern
Time, Monday through Friday, excluding government holidays.
Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not
submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in
accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing
requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper
format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail
addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention:
Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or
expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth
Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland
20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. Participants
filing a document in this manner are responsible for serving the
document on all other participants. Filing is considered complete by
first-class mail as of the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier,
express mail, or expedited delivery service upon depositing the
document with the provider of the service. A presiding officer, having
granted an exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a
participant or party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer
subsequently determines that the reason for granting the exemption from
use of E-Filing no longer exists.
Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in
NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at
https://
[[Page 53497]]
ehd1.nrc.gov/EHD/, unless excluded pursuant to an order of the
Commission, or the presiding officer. Participants are requested not to
include personal privacy information, such as social security numbers,
home addresses, or home phone numbers in their filings, unless an NRC
regulation or other law requires submission of such information. With
respect to copyrighted works, except for limited excerpts that serve
the purpose of the adjudicatory filings and would constitute a Fair Use
application, participants are requested not to include copyrighted
materials in their submission.
If a person (other than USEC) requests a hearing, that person shall
set forth with particularity the manner in which his interest is
adversely affected by this Confirmatory Order and shall address the
criteria set forth in 10 CFR 2.309(d) and (f).
If a hearing is requested by a person whose interest is adversely
affected, the Commission will issue an order designating the time and
place of any hearing. If a hearing is held, the issue to be considered
at such hearing shall be whether this Confirmatory Order should be
sustained.
In the absence of any request for hearing, or written approval of
an extension of time in which to request a hearing, the provisions
specified in Section V above shall be final 20 days from the date this
Confirmatory Order is published in the Federal Register without further
order or proceedings. If an extension of time for requesting a hearing
has been approved, the provisions specified in Section V shall be final
when the extension expires if a hearing request has not been received.
A request for hearing shall not stay the immediate effectiveness of
this order.
Dated this 17th day of August 2011.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Leonard D. Wert, Jr.,
Deputy Regional Administrator for Operations.
[FR Doc. 2011-21902 Filed 8-25-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P