ML20128L478

Responds to to Paperiello Re USEC Gaseous Diffusion Plants.Doe Technical Staff Should Remain Available to Provide Support & Comments to NRC on Safety Issues Which May Arise in Connection W/Nrc Regulatory Oversight

ML20128L478
Person / Time
Site:	Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant, Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant
Issue date:	10/08/1996
From:	Ten Eyck E NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS)
To:	Jazel Parks ENERGY, DEPT. OF
References
NUDOCS 9610150088
Download: ML20128L478 (1)

Text

October 8, 1996 Mr. Jo3 W. Parks Assistant Manager for Enrichment Facilities U.S. Department of Energy, EF20 P.O. Box 2001 Oak Ridge, TN 37831

Dear Mr. Parks:

I am responding to your September 16,1996, letter to Dr. Paperiello regarding the U. S.

Enrichment Corporation (USEC) gaseous diffusion plants. You requested guidance from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on the amount of support that the NRC expects from the Department of Energy from now to the March 3,1997, transition date and beyond.

Your letter specifically mentions future activities associated with the Annual Report to Congress, the Compliance Plans, recertification of the GDPs, and any general DOE support.

As previously agreed, our staffs are currently working on a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that will outline DOE /NRC interactions during the transition period and after NRC assumes jurisdiction, particularly with respect to coordination on the Compliance Plans. It is our goal to finalize the MOU this fall.

We anticipate requesting DOE to provide information for a portion of the initial Annual Report to Congress, because much of the period to be covered by the report will be while the plants are still under DOE regulatory authority. Future reports should involve only minimal DOE involvement.

With respect to future recertifications, we note that the Energy Policy Act of 1992 requires a DOE-prepared compliance plan as a condition of certification, if USEC is not in full compliance with NRC requirements. Therefore, we would like to discuss further with

$c, you the appropriate DOE role with respect to any future compliance plans needed for

@Q recertification.

8 e.

With respect to general DOE support, we request that the DOE technical staff remain D' O available to provide support and comments to NRC on safety issues which may arise in i

@j connection with NRC regulatory oversight; for example, implementation of the seismic g@

safety upgrades at the Paducah plant.

in <t 8

If you wish to discuss any of these items further, please contact me at (301) 415-7212.

EE o a.u Sincerely,

[0riginal signed py E. W. Brach]

y Elizabeth O. Ten Eyck, Director 30 RE E4E. ;

Division of Fuei Cvcie Sefetv y=m-and Safeguards, NMSS Docket Nos. 70-7001 & 70-7002 Distribution: FCSS Control li96-25 NRC FILE CENTER' #

PUBLIC GShear CCox CSawyer KO'Brien FCEB r/f FCSS r/f NMSS r/f BRhoten G:\\ Parks.JWH OFC FCEB C

FCEB C

FCEp_

FCEh FpfpB C

NAME MHN Wbwink JINkey hch hn Eyck I

DATE

/0 /f/96 l0 /8/96

1. /(96 fy)/'[/96 p /J /96 C = C6VER E = COVER & ENCLOSURE N =<NO COPY OFFICIAL RECORD COPY 9N

[N-Jt M1

' vt'

(( 2/5 7C/! 3 3 l

t f

J L/tdv LA x

ps -

~~

.T'T T ~

...n

.::". /

N

,.l Department of Energy 1

M Ridge W P.O. Box 2001 l

Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37831-8651 September 16,1996 I

\\

l Dr. Carl J. Paperiello i

United States Nuclear 1

i Regulatory Commission I

2 White Filnt North MS T8A33 Washington, DC 20555

Dear Dr. Paperiello:

l The August 28,1996, briefing by your staff to the Commissioners was a j

monumental day in the transition of the regulatory oversight responsibility of the i

Gaseous Diffusion Plants (GDP) from the Department of Energy (DOE) to the j

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). The past three years have been a substantial challenge to both organizations, and I would like to take this opportunity to personally thank you and your staff for a most diligent and successful effort. The cooperatir.n and dedication of your staff have been instrumental in this effort.

DOE looks forward to the transition date of March 3,1997. However, this date for all practical purposes will complete DOE's regulatory responsibilities for the leased portions of the GDPs (except for Highly Enriched Uranium Refeed) and bring to a close DOE's financial obligations for the transition of the facilities. As such, I am writing this letter to request guidance from you and your staff on the DOE support that NRC expects from now to the transition date and beyond, recognizing that DOE will regulate the GDPs until March 3,1997. The information resulting from this request will be essential input to future DOE budgetary considerations.

i Of particular interest is the sup ort needed for future activities associated with the Annual Report to Congress, the Compliance Plans, recertification of the GDPs, and any peneral DOE support. With regard to the Annual Report to Congress, we view DOE s participation as a review function of the report prepared b h RC. For the GDP Compliance Plans, Revision 4 (to be issued in approximatet the next six weeks) will complete DOE's financial obligations for this effort.

Iso, I have been advised by DOE's General Counsel that DOE's financial responsibility for any newly identified safety upgrades or ap?Iications for certification will cease once NRC assumes oversight responsibility for the GDPs. As each of us continue to face reductions in annual budgets, I'm sure that you can appreciate my need for this information, l

u 4...

j

\\

Dr. Carl J. Paperiello September 16,1996 Again, thank you for your support in the transition of the GDPs and I look forward to our interactions in the future if there are any questions rega,rding my request, please contact me at (423) 576-0892.

Sincerely, a

i AO L

W. Parks Assistant Manager for Enrichment Facilities J

l cc:

R. E. Dierlam, NE-40, GTN J. Dale Jackson, EF-20/TRPK, ORO i

i 4

l