ML19325E296
| ML19325E296 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/24/1989 |
| From: | Loysen P NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | Rouse L NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| References | |
| REF-PROJ-M-45 NUDOCS 8911060123 | |
| Download: ML19325E296 (4) | |
Text
7 o
- o. -
OCT t 41999 Project M-45 MEMORANDUM FOR:
Leland C. Rouse, Chief Fuel Cycle Safety Branch Division of Industrial and L
Medical Nuclear Safety, NHSS FROM:
Peter Loysen Licensing Project Manager Advanced Fuel and Special Facilities Section l-Fuel Cycle Safety Branch c
Division of Industrial and Medical Nuclear Safety, NMSS r
SUBJECT:
SUMMARY
OF MEETING WITH LOUISIANA ENERGY SERVICES T
4
" The NRC staff met with representatives of Louisiana Energy Services (LES) on f 0ctober 11.1989,ished to discuss included Regulatory Guides a to continue detailed discussions on licensing matters. 1The
, topics (thatLESw
(
T meteorology, nuclear criticality safety, plant design certification, and th Q ', '
' issue of construction not being essentially com)1ete before issuance of an operating license.
In addition, LES wanted to lear about the staff's J
impressions of the Urenco plants in West Germany and The Netherlands, which we 11
, visited recently. A list of meeting attendees is enclosed, t
At a meeting held at the Department of State on October 10, 1989, LES stated that they did not intend for Duke Power Company to seek approval of a facility l
security plan so they cW1d receive and use classified information there.
NRC's Division of Security was curious about this statement, since one Urenco document, received by NRC, is destined for a Duke Power employee. When l
questioned about the matter, LES reiterated that, at least for the present, no facility security plan approval would be sought for Duke Power. LES' intention is'that classified design information necessary for a license application will be received, used, and assembled at Fluor-Daniel, which has sought plan approval. LES was reminded that it would take about six months for approval of a facility security plan and about one year for personnel L
security clearances.
The principal Regulatory Guides (R.G.) that LES plans to use are the applicable parts of R.G. 3.55, Standard Format and Content for the Health and Safety Sections of License Renewal Applications for Uranium Hexafluoride Production, and R.G. 3.25, Standard Format and Content of Safety Analysis Reports for Uranium Enrichment Facilities, the latter of which was to be used in conjunc-l tion with a draft proposed 10 CFR Part 52 for domestic licensing of uranium enrichment facilities in 1974. The staff has no objection to LES us%g these Regulatory Guides as references, but suggested that R.G. 3.25 and especially the craft proposed Part 52 may be obsolete or even conflict with current requirenents.
Nevertheless, we offered to search for a copy of the draft i
proposed regulation for completeness of the references.
"J ia M AS3 " "4 y
M-45 PNV
b4
,4
~
~
~
4 3
,e OCT 2 41989 t
i a,
i,
Leland 0? House f
p 4..
$, r' h ;'
l i-LES has rec 9guized that they cannot set up a metecrological tower and begin to i
. collect data in time to provide one year's worth of data with the license cf asp 11 cation in late 1990. For the application they proposed to use data from tis National Weather Service (NWS) station at Shreveport, Louisiana, which is about s
50 miles from both of the sites under consideration. The NWS data would later be verified by onsite measurements. The staff considered this proposal to be satisf actory.
LES stated that, for nuclear criticality safety design purposes, they plan to-R use the report TID-7016 and ANSI standards, and that they would seak an i
exemption from the requirement of 10 CFR Part 70.24 to provide a criticality monitoring system. We had no objection to this plan, noting that any request for exempt;on from the regulations must be thoroughly justified, s
Fluor-Daniel plans to perform inoepencknt calculations and make other determinations to validate information furnished by Urenco. This would amount to a plant design certification by the applicant, thus obviating the need M audit any Urenco reference infortuation in the event of questions about the safety of particular items. We commended LES for taking this approach, although pointing out some difficulty in covering every situation, particularly where chssified information might be involved.
a c On the matter of issuing an operating license while the semi-continuous i
process of installing centrifuge cascades and other equipment is ongoing under a construction permit, Bob Fonner said that he_is looking at the legis?ative history of the Atomic Energy Act for possible ways to permit the desired practice. He believes other options may also be possible. The problem would not appear to be insurmountable by the staff, but Forner pointed-l L
out that, in any adjudication, the presiding, judge or board might isave to rule l-on the matter if it were contended.
U At a previous meeting with LES, the staff stated that it expected to prepare 6
s a request for information for antitrust review by the end of October.
LES r-i-,'
. questioned whether such a time is still reasonable. Upon later inquiry, it appears that the schedula will be met.
I gave a brief description of our visits to the Urenco plants in West Germany an] T'1e Netherlands. The overall impressions of the plants are that, despite
+
some differences in age, innovations, and regulatory requirements, they ared 3 S
m' carefully thought out, designed, constructed, tested, and operated. Many of " ~
the features impcrtant for nuclear material safety and safeguards are either.
t inherent in the design of the centrifuge arocess, required for efficient 1
. uperation', r built into the balance of t1e )lant. An important element <
attributed torthe success of the plants is t1e conservative approach to."
. J.t
[,
1 i
I H
m3 t
p_
z -q Ny.y N.
4-OCT 2 41989
$ ! T
', t 1 3
y.
w, '9 ULeland C. Rouse
?
~ p.
'i t;
-3 y
a t.
e hl
?p/ mW improvements. Changes are introduced only in an evolutionary manner after
/
extensive testing to demonstrate reliability as well as improvement. It thus.
',:s became. obvious to us why Urenco is insisting that the technology which will be
)
transferred to Louisiana Energy Services must not be tampered with in the United States.
J. ;
Orts m 1::ts:pt11 Pote? Lotun Peter Loysen, Licensing Project Manager f
Advanced Fuel and Special
.c" Facilities Section' Fuel Cycle Safety Branch
~
Division of ?cdustrial-and
./'
Medical Nuclear Safety, NMSS
Enclosure:
List of Attendees
~
Distribution:
' Project M-45 P DR.-
IMSB R/F-NRC File Center GMcCorkle NMSS R/F IMAF R/F JBecker HPeterson, GPA RFBurnett DKasun, SG.
CSawyer, SG.
RBrady,SEC PLoysen -
WFisher,LRIV FBrwon NMSS Off. R/F IMNS Central File NRC, Meeting Attendees
.Beveridge/ Cornell 1 23 1
i s
?
.c 3
i
...e
^ f y
(
,) ",'
r'.
t
'C
(
.e L
4 g
s 1
!. t '
I 4
X-
,y d
l-
, 'f r
t li. OFC: :IMA ~ <
I F In/..
- IM5B,,/.y t
o 4
NAME":PL~
n:jc Town ft
- LCRouse
--.... i..... -..... - :.Q. - - - - -..... :
[ (DATE(:10/Jo/89
- 10N/89
- 10/d 89
- 10/91 89
/
/
,r q
12.
0FilCIAL RFCORD COPY
, g Y
a c
[< ;.d ".. [.
OCT 14 N i
s, b, ;
f
. i,. t :
w
,n e
l,m,
LOUISIANA ENERGY SERVICE Ll ~ '
Attendees October 11, 1989 (n '
i.i' i
n'"
Name-Affiliation
(
F p
4 Q
Peter Loysen NRC/NMSS e
C' huck Nilsen NRC/NMSS m
f
[.r o
p.
. Gary Conifort NRC/NMSS
- .y
- . y,.-
i e
- v.,
] 7,l # ';
Robert L. Fonner NRC/0GC 4 c '~
'i.
p.
3.
l,ly,e..,.^ Davis Hurt
_NRC/NMSS 7
py/
- lprWilliamR.Howry.
Fluor Daniel
- y
~
- a t
- o
~ '
V Richard D. Belprez Fluor Daniel
' 'i 3
6i
./
f
4
,A Jesse'B. Swords Duke'Engi.ieering & Services, Inc.
3
- w n.
~
Peter LeRoy Duke Engineering &. Services, Inc.
'l'
~
\\;I Lois Telford NRC/SEC
~.
Bill Shields Bishop, Cook, Purell and Reynolds<
l l
Jerry J. Swift NRC/NMSS 1
l B. M.'Bordenick NRC/0GC Bill Griffin Fluor Daniel 3
i I
Howard Arnold LES Fritz Sturz NRC/NMSS 9
l l'
L' I
1 r
b I
'r (1
r
.