March 17, 2014

DOES DOE HAVE BASIS FOR ENFORCEMENT ACTION AT WTP? GC TO WEIGH IN

By ExchangeMonitor

The Department of Energy has for months been weighing a fine or other enforcement action against Waste Treatment Plant contractor Bechtel National related to nuclear safety issues on the project, but questions have arisen related to the one of the main rationales for such a fine and DOE Chief Health, Safety and Security Officer Glenn Podonsky on Monday asked the General Counsel to confirm his office’s approach to the enforcement action. At issue is whether Department of Energy requirements for contractors to maintain documented safety analysis documents apply to preliminary DSAs, according to an April 22 letter from Podonsky to the General Counsel, obtained by WC Monitor. Podonsky asked the GC for clarification on the issue, citing an unnamed contractor that “recently asserted that its failure to maintain a Preliminary Documented Safety Analysis for a facility undergoing design and construction is not enforceable” under DOE regulations. DOE did not return calls for comment on the letter yesterday.

Concerns over PDSAs were one of the major issues identified in the DOE Office of Health, Safety and Security’s preliminary findings in its investigation at the Hanford vit plant, which were submitted to Bechtel National last fall. In its preliminary findings, HSS said that based on its investigation, “it is clear that the current facility specific PDSAs do not sufficiently analyze and document the hazards of the facilities and the controls necessary to address the hazards.” The DOE safety office also said in its preliminary findings, “PDSAs often lack the necessary safety SSC functional requirements and performance criteria. In addition, there are numerous inconsistencies between the current facility design and the facility-specific PDSA.”

According to Podonsky, the unnamed contractor has claimed that the failure to maintain a PDSA was not enforceable under DOE requirements because “(a) the subsection that specifically addresses PDSAs … contains no such requirements and (b) the definition provided in [10 C.F.R. Part 830 Nuclear Safety Management] for safety basis does not specifically mention a PDSA.” HSS disagrees with such assertions, however. “In our view, this assertion is contrary to the intent of Part 830 and is the product of combining an inappropriately narrow view of this regulation with several internal inconsistencies,” Podonsky wrote in the April 22 letter, adding, “More importantly, the assertion seems to purposefully ignore DOE’s expectations regarding the establishment of an appropriate safety basis early in the design and construction process.” Bechtel did not return calls for comment yesterday.

Comments are closed.