Peter S. Winokur, Chairman 

Jessie H. Roberson, Vice Chainnan 

Jolrn E. Mansfield 

Joseph F. Bader 

Sean Sullivan 

Mr. Bruce Held 

Acting Administrator 

DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES 

SAFETY BOARD 

Washington, DC 20004-2901 

August 26, 2013 

National Nuclear Security Administration 

U. S. Department of Energy 

1000 Independence A venue, SW 

Washington, DC 20585-0701 

Dear Mr. Held: 

The Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (Board) has reviewed updated safety basis 

and design information for the Uranium Processing Facility (UPF) project at the Y-12 National 

Security Complex and concludes that the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) has 

made progress in addressing prior issues communicated in an April 2, 2012, letter to the NNSA 

Administrator; nevertheless, additional action is needed to improve the integration of safety in 

the UPF design. The Board believes that NNSA must continue to improve the effectiveness of 

UPF's safety controls and strengthen oversight to ensure planned controls can reliably perf01m 

their safety functions. 

The Board's recent review identified a number of issues that warrant timely corrective 

action to ensure compliance with Department of Energy (DOE) requirements. These issues are 

described in the enclosed report. The Board is concerned that NNSA' s safety basis review and 

approval process did not identify and address a series of issues that involve weaknesses in 

planned UPF safety controls. However, the Board notes that staff-level discussions with NNSA 

and UPF project personnel have produced positive initial steps in defining resolution strategies 

for most of these problems. Additionally, moving forward the Board will carefully review the 

safety implications of continued facility re-design to address space/fit issues. 

The enclosed report also documents technical deficiencies in UPF's atmospheric 

dispersion modeling, which is a key input to accident consequence calculations that determine 

the functional classifications for UPF safety controls. While the Board's independent analysis of 

current UPF project data concludes that correcting these technical deficiencies in atmospheric 

dispersion parameters will not alter the classification of NNSA's planned safety controls, the 

technical problems with atmospheric dispersion modeling are not unique to the UPF project. 

Therefore, the Board calls your attention to our atmospheric dispersion-related input into the 

ongoing revision process for DOE Standard 3009, Preparation Guide for U.S. Department of 

Energy Nonreactor Nuclear Facility Documented Safety Analyses, as referenced in the Board's 

letter to Secretary Moniz dated July 24, 2013. The Board believes this information will aid 
Mr. Bruce Held Page 2 

NNSA in ensuring future atmospheric dispersion modeling efforts are technically sound and 

reasonably conservative. 

Early and effective integration of safety into design is critically important for the success 

of the UPF project. Therefore, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2286b(d), the Board requests a report and 

briefing within 60 days of receipt of this letter describing (1) NNSA' s plan and schedule for 

addressing the issues detailed in the section titled, "Open Issues with the UPF Safety Basis," in 

the enclosed report and (2) NNSA' s plan to strengthen oversight of control selection and 

evaluation processes for the UPF project. 

Enclosure 

c: Mr. Steven C. Erhaii 

Mr. Robert B. Raines 

Mr. John R. Eschenberg 

Mrs. Mari-Jo Campagnone 

Sincerely, 

Peter S. Winokur, Ph.D. 

Chairman 
DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD 

MEMORANDUM FOR: 

COPIES: 

FROM: 

SUBJECT: 

Staff Issue Report 

July 24, 2013 

S. A. Stokes, Acting Technical Director 

Board Members 

B. Broderick 

Summary of Open Issues with the Safety Basis for the Uranium 

Processing Facility Project, Y-12 National Security Complex 

The staff of the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (Board) has reviewed updated 

safety basis and design documentation for the Uranium Processing Facility (UPF) project at the 

Y-12 National Security Complex (Y-12). This report summarizes open issues with the UPF 

safety basis. Open issues are defined as areas where the Board's staff believes that additional 

management attention and action are necessary to bring aspects of existing UPF safety analysis 

and control strategies into full compliance with Department of Energy (DOE) requirements. 

Open safety basis-related issues documented in this report include concerns identified during 

reviews perfonned by the Board's staff, as well as previously communicated Board concerns that 

have not yet been successfully resolved. This list of open issues reflects the current state of the 

Board's staff review of the UPF project. The list will continue to evolve as project personnel 

complete corrective actions and as the Board's staff conducts future reviews to evaluate changes 

to the UPF safety basis and design as the project matures. 

Background. On April 2, 2012, the Board issued a letter to the Administrator of the 

National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) that highlighted a number of areas where the 

UPF project's existing safety analysis and control strategies did not satisfy DOE requirements, 

resulting in inadequate integration of safety in the UPF design. NNSA management provided a 

final response to the Board's letter on June 27, 2012, and committed to implement a number of 

corrective actions. A critical component of NNSA' s corrective action plan called for UPF 

project personnel to revise the Preliminary Safety Design Report (PSDR), which serves as the 

project's safety basis for the current stage of design. UPF project personnel submitted 

Revision 1 of RP-EF-8017 68-A004, Prelirninary Safety Design Report for the Uranium 

Processing Facility (PSDR Rev. 1), to the NNSA Production Office (NPO) in September2012. 

NPO management approved this revision via PSVR-9226-RO, Preliminary Safety Validation 

Report for the Uranium Processing Facility (Building 9226) Preliminary Safety Design Report 

September 2012 (PSVR), in March 2013. The Board's staff evaluated PSDR Rev. l and its 

supporting documentation in an onsite review conducted in March 2013 and held a follow-up 

teleconference with UPF and NNSA personnel in May 2013. 
Open Issues with the UPF Safety Basis. The Board's staff notes that constructive 

interactions with NNSA and UPF project personnel during recent review activities have resulted 

in positive initial steps in defining effective resolution strategies for many of the open issues 

documented below. UPF personnel have begun executing some of these resolution strategies, 

e.g., submitting a proposed revision to RP-FS-801768-A003, Safety Design Strategy for the 

Uranium Processing Facility. Additionally, NPO management included in their PSVR a set of 

Conditions for Proceeding to the Next Stage of Design that are relevant to several of the fire- and 

explosion-related open issues described below. 

Fires Involving Staged Canned Sub-Assemblies-Several UPF process areas will house 

staging locations for Canned Sub-Assemblies (CSAs). Some CSAs contain highly hazardous 

toxic materials that can be released or react energetically if subjected to sufficient the1mal energy 

from a fire. The safety-significant fire protection system is credited to control fires to prevent 

energetic events or significant releases of toxicological material. DAC-EF-801768-A049, 

Assessment of UPF Fires to Support the Preliminary Safety Design Report (U), indicates that for 

some fire scenarios involving CSAs, the fire protection system would not actuate or actuation 

would be delayed. For these scenarios, UPF safety analysis has not demonstrated that the fire 

protection system's current functional requirements and peli'ormance criteria are sufficient to 

ensure that the system will perform its credited safety function to prevent energetic events or 

significant releases of toxicological material. This situation does not comply with the UPF code 

of record, DOE Order 420. lB Change 1, Facility Safety, Section 3.b.(7), which states, "Safety 

SSCs [structures, systems, and components] and safety software must be designed, 

commensurate with the importance of the safety functions peli'ormed, to perform their safety 

functions when called upon ... " 

Glove box Fires-Gloveboxes in UPF' s disassembly and quality evaluation process areas 

can house pyrophoric materials and CSA components that contain highly hazardous and 

thermally-reactive materials. Under normal operating conditions, these gloveboxes are provided 

with an inert gas atmosphere that does not allow combustion. However, the features that provide 

this inert atmosphere are not credited safety controls, and the inert environment can be lost under 

credible accident conditions (e.g., a seismic event that breaches the confinement integrity of a 

glovebox). If the inert environment is lost, oxygen intrusion into the glovebox could cause 

pyrophoric material to ignite, initiating a glovebox fire. Jf seismically-induced common cause 

failures result in multiple glovebox fires, then hazardous material releases from CSA 

components could exceed public or collocated worker toxicological consequence thresholds 

defined by Appendix B of DOE-STD-1189, Integration of Safety into the Design Process. The 

safety-significant fire protection system is credited to prevent significant fire-driven 

toxicological releases. However, sprinklers associated with the fire protection system are located 

outside of gloveboxes, so they cannot be relied upon to protect CSA components from being 

compromised by fires inside gloveboxes. This situation does not comply with Section 3.b.(7) of 

DOE Order 420.lB Change 1. 

Aircraft Crashes-PSDR Rev. 1 analyzes an aircraft crash as a design basis accident for 

the UPF main building but does not analyze aircraft crash scenarios for ancillary UPF structures 

such as the Highly Enriched Uranium Materials Facility Connector, the Loading Dock/Truck 

Bay, or the Enclosed Dock/Dock Vestibule. PSDR Rev. 1 concludes that aircraft crash 

2 
evaluation for ancillary structures is not required because, individual1l, the frequency of an 

aircraft impacting each structure would be below the guideline of 1 o- per year established by 

DOE-STD-3014, Accident Analysis for Aircraft Crash into Hazardous Facilities. However, the 

standard defines a facility to include "the collection of such structures that could be affected by a 

single aircraft impact." PSDR Rev. I did not account for the potential of a single aircraft to 

impact multiple structures, which may require that ancillary structures be designed for aircraft 

crash impacts. This situation does not comply with Section I. l.1 of DOE-STD-1189 which 

states that a PSDR must demonstrate that "the analysis of DB As [design basis accidents] 

identifies the functional requirements and accident conditions (e.g., environmental qualifications) 

that the safety SSCs need to address." 

Project personnel have indicated that recent evaluations performed by UPF analysts 

concluded that the estimated frequencies of aircraft crashes involving these ancillary structures 

exceed the DOE-STD-3014 guideline. UPF safety analysts therefore concluded that aircraft 

crash scenarios must be analyzed as design basis accidents for ancillary UPF structures. 

Non-Seismic Natural Phenomena Hazards and 1Vlan-Made External Events-PSDR 

Rev. I credits UPF structures to provide protection against a broad range of natural phenomena 

hazards and man-made external events. However, PSDR Rev. 1 does not clearly link the 

identified functional requirements and performance criteria for UPF structures to the specific 

accident stresses that they are credited to protect against for all design basis accidents. Important 

structural attributes may not be effectively captured and incorporated into the design if functional 

requirements and performance criteria for UPF structures are not clearly linked to the accidentdri ven environmental conditions these structures are credited to withstand. For example, PSDR 

Rev. 1 credits the UPF main building structure to protect hazardous materials and safety systems 

from external fires and explosions. The accident analysis identifies vehicle impacts and wildfires 

as potential initiators for external fires and explosions, but these accident initiators and their 

associated environmental stresses are not captured in the UPF main building's functional 

requirements or perfonnance criteria to be factored into the design of the structure. This 

situation does not satisfy Section 4.3.X.3 of DOE-STD-3009, Preparation Guide for U.S. 

Department of Energy Nonreactor Nuclear Facility Documented Safety Analyses, which states 

that "[1]unctional requirements specifically address the pertinent response parameters or 

nonambient environmental stresses related to an accident for which the [credited control's] safety 

function is being relied upon." 

Concurrent Releases of Multiple Hazardous Materials-Some UPF fire scenarios (e.g., 

disassembly or quality evaluation process area glovebox fires) can concurrently release multiple 

hazardous chemicals. PSDR Rev. l and its supporting analyses do not evaluate the potential for 

concurrently released chemicals to have compounding toxicological effects. As a result, PSDR 

Rev. l determines the need to credit controls to prevent or mitigate toxicological hazards based 

solely on the potential for any single chemical to exceed public or collocated worker exposure 

thresholds. DAC-EF-801768-A049, Assessment of UPF Fires to Support the Preliminary Safety 

Design Report ( U), acknowledges that this approach is not conservative and notes that UPF 

analysts will assess potentially compounding toxicological effects from concurrently released 

chemicals in future safety basis documentation. However, the existing PSDR Rev. I analysis 

does not comply with the provisions for analyzing chemical mixtures described in Section B.4 of 

3 
DOE-STD-1189 and could result in the need to credit additional controls when the cumulative 

consequence effects of concurrently released chemicals are evaluated. 

Dust Explosions-Processing activities in disassembly, quality evaluation, and Saltless 

Direct Oxide Reduction (SDOR) gloveboxes can generate suspended pyrophoric or reactive 

dusts. According to existing UPF Hazard Evaluation Studies, these suspended dusts can produce 

explosions that could seriously injure facility workers. PSDR Rev. I credits safety-significant 

controls to protect facility workers from dust explosion hazards associated with these 

gloveboxes. Under normal operating conditions, affected gloveboxes are provided with an inert 

gas atmosphere that prevents the rapid combustion reaction necessary to produce a dust 

explosion. However, the features that provide this inert atmosphere are not credited safety 

controls, and the inert environment can be lost under credible upset or accident conditions. 

PSDR Rev. I credits the safety-significant lathe cutting control interlock to prevent a dust 

explosion by securing cutting operations if upset or accident conditions cause significant 

amounts of oxygen to enter disassembly or quality evaluation gloveboxes when suspended dust 

is present. Securing cutting operations removes one ignition source; however, current UPF 

safety analysis has not ruled out the potential for pyrophoric material to ignite suspended dust if 

the inert glovebox atmosphere is lost, initiating a dust explosion. Therefore, PSDR Rev. 1 has 

not demonstrated that the safety-significant lathe cutting control interlock is sufficient to prevent 

a dust explosion in disassembly and quality evaluation gloveboxes. This situation does not 

comply with Section 3.b.(7) of DOE Order 420. lB Change 1. 

PSDR Rev. I credits the design of certain SDOR gloveboxes to protect facility workers 

from serious injuries resulting from dust explosions. These safety-significant SDOR gloveboxes 

are credited to confine dust explosion overpressures. However, UPF analysts have not 

demonstrated that polymer gloves associated with these gloveboxes are capable of surviving a 

dust explosion. Facility workers could be seriously injured if dust explosion overpressures are 

vented through glovebox openings created by failed gloves. This situation does not comply with 

Section 3.b.(7) of DOE Order 420. IB Change 1. 

Violent Chemical Reactions-Chemical dissolution activities associated with basket 

dissolver and beaker leaching unit operations in the special oxide production process area can 

result in violent chemical reactions that forcefully expel heated chemical agents from process 

vessels. PSDR Rev. 1 does not identify any credited controls to protect facility workers from 

chemical burns resulting from these violent chemical reactions. The current UPF safety basis 

has not demonstrated how this approach complies with Appendix C of DOE-STD-1189 that 

identifies "chemical or thermal burns to a FW [facility worker] that could reasonably cover a 

significant pottion of the FW body where self-protective actions are not reasonably available due 

to the speed of the event" as a hazardous condition that warrants consideration of safetysignificant controls. 

Organic Material Combustion in the Ca!ciner-Chemical recovery processes upstream 

of the high temperature calciner contain organic material used for solvent extraction. If 

combustible organics are introduced into the calciner when heated to its normal operating 

temperature (roughly 1400 °C), rapid combustion of the organic material could release enough 

4 
energy to rupture the calciner unit and injure facility workers. Earlier in UPF' s design evolution, 

upstream phase separators were credited as safety-significant controls to prevent bulk transfer of 

organic material into heated equipment. Recently, UPF project personnel downgraded the 

functional classification of phase separators and instead credited more reliable and effective 

temperature interlocks to protect heated equipment. However, a temperature interlock is not 

feasible for the calciner which is designed and intended to operate at very high temperatures. 

This leaves the calciner without a credited control to prevent the introduction of organics that 

could rapidly combust, over-pressurize the system, and seriously injure facility workers. This 

situation does not comply with Section 3.b.(7) of DOE Order 420. I B Change I. 

Steam Ove17Jressure in Casting Furnaces-Water intrusion into a casting furnace vessel 

during high-temperature operations can cause a violent steam overpressure event that could 

seriously injure facility workers. PSDR Rev. 1 credits the primary system integrity of the casting 

furnace vessel and its supporting equipment to prevent water ingress. The safety-significant 

primary system integrity control establishes a water-tight boundary formed by the shell of the 

furnace vessel and its connected piping and equipment. This boundary prevents water that 

originates outside the system from entering the high temperature furnace. However, PSDR 

Rev. I also identifies mechanisms for water to enter the heated furnace from sources inside the 

system's water-tight boundary due to credible upsets in ventilation or utility gas systems that are 

plumbed directly into the furnace vessel. PSDR Rev. 1 does not demonstrate how the safetysignificant primary system integrity control can effectively prevent steam overpressure events 

caused by water ingress from these internal sources. This situation does not comply with Section 

3.b.(7) of DOE Order 420. lB Change I. 

Hydrogen Explosion in the Hydrogen Reduction Fluidized Bed Reactor-A hydrogen 

explosion could occur in the enriched uranium purification and metal production process if 

oxygen is present when pure hydrogen gas is introduced into the fluidized bed reactor vessel to 

begin a hydrogen reduction evolution. The current UPF safety strategy relies on operator action 

to purge oxygen from the reactor vessel using inett gas prior to starting reduction operations to 

prevent a hydrogen explosion. However, PSDR Rev. 1 does not credit this operator action as a 

Specific Administrative Control (SAC), even though it is relied upon to prevent an event that 

could result in serious facility worker injuries. This situation does not comply with Section 1.2 

of DOE-STD-1186, Specific Administrative Controls, which states that "an SAC exists when an 

AC [administrative control] is identified in the Documented Safety Analysis (DSA) as a control 

needed to prevent or mitigate an accident scenario, and has a safety function that would be SS 

[safety-significant] or SC [safety-class] if the function were provided by an SSC." 

Hydrogen Explosion in the Assembly Environmental Room-Hydrogen would be 

released if water reacted with lithium hydride or lithium deuteride compounds used in the UPF 

assembly process area. A significant quantity of these water-reactive materials will be present in 

the assembly environmental room that is equipped with a wet pipe fire suppression system. 

PSDR Rev. I did not evaluate the potential for a hydrogen explosion in the assembly 

environmental room if credible upset conditions allow water to interact with lithium compounds, 

causing hydrogen to accumulate inside the enclosure. Appendix C of DOE-STD-1189 identifies 

deflagrations or explosions within confinement structures that may result in serious facility 

5 
worker injuries as a hazardous condition that warrants consideration of safety-significant 

controls. 

Damage Ratio of 0.1-PSDR Rev. 1 assumes that only 10 percent of enriched uranium 

metal material at risk (MAR) located in storage racks would be impacted and made available for 

release by seismically-induced fires. The PSDR implements this assumption by assigning the 

Damage Ratio (DR) variable a value of 0.1 for uranium metal in storage racks. This DR value is 

derived from the empirical results from a series of experiments conducted at Los Alamos 

National Laboratory (LANL) where uranium metal specimens were heated for two hours under 

controlled laboratory conditions. 

The Board's staff believes that these experimental conditions are not a reasonably 

conservative representation of the unmitigated seismically-induced UPF fire environment for 

several reasons. First, the postulated seismically-induced fire scenario analyzed in PSDR Rev. I 

assumes MAR is exposed to fire temperatures for three hours, whereas the referenced LANL 

experiments only subjected uranium to elevated temperatures for two hours. Increasing the 

amount of time uranium metal is exposed to high temperatures tends to result in greater 

oxidation and higher DRs. Second, the cited LANL experiments subjected uranium specimens 

to controlled temperatures, and thus did not account for the significantly increased uranium 

oxidation that can result from temperature fluctuations that thermally cycle the exposed material. 

The unmitigated seismically-induced UPP fire environment could exhibit significant temperature 

fluctuations as burning combustibles are consumed and new combustibles ignite. Therefore, the 

Board's staff believes that the UPP project does not have adequate data to support the use of a 

DR of 0.1 as a reasonably conservative input parameter consistent with Section A.3 of DOESTD-3009. 

Atmospheric Dispersion Modeling. The results of UPF accident consequence 

calculations depend heavily on the degree of dispersion and dilution that a plume of released 

material is assumed to experience in the atmosphere as it travels from the facility in an accident. 

Atmospheric dispersion effects are represented by the relative concentration factor (x/Q). 

Changes to x!Q affect accident consequence calculations used to determine the functional 

classification of UPP safety controls. In an April 2, 2012, letter to the NNSA Administrator, the 

Board communicated concerns with the conservatism of the analysis used to derive a Y-12 sitespecific dry deposition velocity value of 1.0 cm/s. Dry deposition velocity is a key input 

parameter for calculating x/Q. In response to the Board's concerns, UPP project personnel 

requested that the NNSA Administrator, as NNSA' s Central Technical Authority (CT A), review 

and concur on the project's derivation and selection of dry deposition velocity and x/Q values. 

In June 2012, the NNSA Administrator issued a memorandum providing formal concurrence 

with the UPP project team's selection of atmospheric dispersion parameter values. The Board's 

staff bas reviewed the CT A concurrence memo and its supporting documentation and believes 

that for UPP, a dry deposition velocity value of 1.0 cm/sis not reasonably conservative or 

consistent with recent DOE guidance on deposition velocity calculations. As a consequence, the 

Board's staff believes the resulting x/Q value is not technically justified. The rationale for this 

conclusion is presented below. Despite continued concerns that UPP values for dry deposition 

velocity and x/Q are not reasonably conservative per Section A.3 of DOE-STD-3009, the 

Board's staff performed independent analysis of current UPP project data and concluded that 

6 
correcting these non-conservatisms would not increase postulated accident consequences enough 

to require the functional classification of UPF safety controls to be upgraded to safety-class. 

PSDR Rev. 1 uses a x/Q value of 1.4x 10-4 s/mJ to calculate accident consequences to the 

public from releases of hazardous particulates. UPF project personnel calculated this x/Q value 

using MACCS2 computer software and the statistical post-processing code POSTMAX. This 

analysis used a site-specific dry deposition velocity value of 1.0 cm/s as a key input parameter. 

UPF project personnel also prepared a separate confirmatory analysis that is nominally based on 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Regulatory Guide 1.145, Atmospheric Dispersion 

Models for Potential Accident Consequence Assessments at Nuclear Power Plants. The NRC 

approach used in the confirmatory analysis does not require dry deposition velocity as an input 

and was intended to bolster confidence in the technical credibility and conservatism of the 

1.4x 10-4 s/mJ result produced by the MACCS2/POSTMAX analysis. 

In Safety Bulletin 2011-02, Accident Analysis Parameter Update, the DOE Office of 

Health, Safety and Security recommended that safety analysts use a model like GENII2 to 

calculate reasonably conservative site-specific dry deposition velocity values. The Y-12 sitespecific deposition velocity calculation applies the equations that underpin the GENII2 code, but 

the calculation departs from the GENII2 default treatment of important parameters related to 

transfer resistance and displacement height. The GENII2 default value for the transfer resistance 

of particles is 100 s/m. The Y-12 analysis uses a scaling equation to produce a less conservative 

value of approximately 25 s/m, but no technical delivation or rationale is provided by site 

analysts to justify the use of this scaling equation. The Y-12 deposition velocity analysis also 

applies a displacement height of roughly 8 m. GENII2 inherently assumes a displacement height 

of 0 m and does not give the user the option of inputting a non-zero value. The Y-12 analysts' 

selection of a non-zero displacement height produced a less conservative dry deposition velocity 

value. Displacement height is a wind profile parameter. The displacement height assumptions 

used in the Y-12 site-specific deposition velocity analysis are not consistent with actual wind 

profiles measured at Y-12. Finally, Savannah River Site personnel commissioned a deposition 

velocity sensitivity study by the atmospheric dispersion experts from Pacific Northwest National 

Laboratory (PNNL) who created and maintain the GENII2 code. For conditions applicable to 

Y-12, the PNNL sensitivity analysis would produce a significantly lower and more conservative 

dry deposition velocity value that would fall near 0.2 - 0.3 emfs. 

The UPF confirmatory x/Q analysis is nominally based on the methodology established 

by NRC Regulatory Guide 1.145. However, this confirmatory analysis uses Briggs Urban 

dispersion parameters in most wind directions, while many of the methods and equations in the 

Regulatory Guide were developed for Pasquill-Gifford parameters and are not applicable for use 

with other sets of dispersion parameters, such as Briggs Urban. The UPF confirmatory analysis 

also uses the solar radiation/delta temperature method for assigning atmospheric stability classes, 

rather than the delta temperature method prescribed by the Regulatory Guide. Finally, the UPF 

confirmatory analysis statistically infers the 95111 percentile x/Q value rather than calculating it 

directly, as expected by the Regulatory Guide. 

7 
Conclusion. Early and effective integration of safety into design is critically important 

for the success of this multibillion-dollar project that is needed to establish a modern, safe, and 

secure replacement facility for uranium processing and manufacturing capabilities currently 

housed in aging or unsound Y-12 facilities. The Board's staff concludes that the open issues 

discussed above warrant additional management attention and action to ensure effective 

integration of safety in the UPF design and to achieve full compliance with DOE requirements. 

For many of these open issues, the safety analysis has not demonstrated that credited controls are 

capable of effectively performing their safety functions. The Board's staff believes that this 

common theme highlights an opportunity to strengthen the UPF project's processes governing 

control selection and evaluation and NNSA' s oversight of these processes. 

The Board's staff also concludes that a dry deposition velocity value of 1.0 cm/sis not 

reasonably conservative for UPF, and that the associated xfQ value of 1.4x 10-4 s/m3 has not been 

technically justified. However, the Board's staff performed an independent analysis of current 

UPF project data and concluded that correcting the non-conservatisms in atmospheric dispersion 

modeling would not increase postulated accident consequences enough to require the functional 

classification of UPF controls to be upgraded to safety-class. 

8