ML20135A707

Forwards Handouts of 970220 Telcon

ML20135A707
Person / Time
Site:	Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant, Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant
Issue date:	02/20/1997
From:	Matthew Smith UNITED STATES ENRICHMENT CORP. (USEC)
To:	Horn M NRC
References
NUDOCS 9702270348
Download: ML20135A707 (24)

Text

70-700/ An'D 70- 7eo.2, FRCri 8USEC 701 564-3210 1937.02-20 08836

1. 831 P.01/24 UNITED STATES ENRICHMENT CORPORATION Two Democracy Center

• 4th Floor e 6903 Rockledge Drive o Bethesda, MD 20817 Fax Memorandum DATE:,

Februarv 20.199_7 TIME:

817 em TO:

Merri Hom FAX:

415-537Q PHONE:

415-8126 FROM:

Mark Smith FAX:

301 Se4-3240 PHONE:

301 584-3244 NUMBER OF PAGES (including cover shoct): 24

SUBJECT:

Handouts For This Momings 9:00 Call Q&'l 9702270348 970220 PDR ADOCK 07007001 C

PDR 270027 N

1. APORTANT Thss fac54mde ab entencec only for the use of the individual or entity to wnsh e is accressed. B rney contam information that in pnvdoged, confiderittal, or otherwme protecatid from disclosure under applicable law. N the reader of this transmissJon is not the ordended recipient or *.he employee or agent responsible for dClivering the transmis&lrAt to the intended i3cipaent, you are hereby McL$sd that any dir$Cmination, d4strMon, copying of usw cl 9na trun:brrn:c. son or its Goritante is strictly prohibited, if you have received this transferation iri error, plasse notify us bytelephonena 301/3644200 and

FROM sUSEC 301-664-3210 1997.02-20 08:36 0831 P.02/24 NRC/USEC MEETING 10 CFR 76 PROCESS IMPROVEMENTS February 20,1997,9:00 a.m.

NRC Offices, Rockville, MD i

Certificate Amendment Process Modifications Treatment of"As-Found" Conditions Safety Criteria / Standards J

2/20/97 1

FRCM USEC' 301-564-3210 1997.02-20 08:36

1. 831 P.02/24 CERTIFICATE AMENDMENT PROCESS MODH1 CATIONS Introduction l

Nature of the Problem i

I Proposed Changes to 10 CFR '/6.45 Benefits ofProposed Changes 2/20/97 2

4

l ~

FROM IUSEC 301-564-3210 1997 02-29 08236

1. 831 P.04/24 j

INTRODUCTION l

i i

i l

PURPOSE:

Present Proposed Modifications to the Certificate Amendment ApprovalProcess OBJECTIVE:

Expedite and Improve the Review and Approval Process for Obtaining Amendments to the Certificate of Compliance.

)

i i

l

\\

2/20/97 3

FROM IUSEC 301-564-3210 1997.02-20 08:36

1. 831 P.05/24 NATURE OF THE PROBLEM Current Amendirent Process Poteltial for Signi5 cant Delays in Issuance of Final Amendment Due to 15 Day Petition Period or the 60 Day Review Period Inconsistent With Material License Amendment Process No Delay in Effectiwness of Decision on Amendments No Formal Public Notice for Non-SigniEcant Amendments i

2/20/97 4

m m iusee set-sc4-saie issv.e2-2e esis?

nsst e.esea4 RESOLUTION OF THE PROBLEM 1

Proposed Revision to 10 CFR 76.45 See Attached Changes to 10 CFR 76.45 r

I I

(

2/20/97 5

.~.

FROM IUSEC 301-564-3310 1997.03-29 08:37 0831 P.07/24 Attachment A DRAFT 21519 7

% 76.45 Application for Amendraent of Certificate (a) conter< of amendment anelication - In addition to the application for certification submitted pursuant to ) 76.31, the Corporation may at any time apply for amendment of the certificate to cover proposed new or modified acuvines. The amendment application should ~

contain sufficient information for the Director to make findings of compliance or acceptability for

', the proposed activities as required for the original certificate The amendment application must be executed in a signed original by the Corporation under oath or affirmation.

(b)

Ep.t. ice of crocosed act!on - Upon receipt of the Corporation's application for amendrnent of the certificate, the Director will determine whether the p'roposed activities are significant. If 1

the Director detennines that the activities are significant, the Director shall, prior to acting on the amendment request, cause to be published in the Federal Ecgmer a notice of proposed action on the request. The notice of proposed action will set forth the nature erthe action proposed and i

~

Will; (1) provide ari oppenunity for written public comment on the Director's proposed action; and i

1 1

i l

1

FRoM st.,SEC 301-564-321o 1997,02-20 08:37 M831 P.08/24 j

i (2) identify the date of any scheduled public meetmg on the Director's proposed action pursuant to 6 76.39.

(c)

Director's decision - (1) Upon a finding of compliance with the Commission's regulations 1

for issuance of a certificate and/or approval of a compliance plan, the Director shall issue the amendment and a written decision explaining the decision. The Director may issue an amendment covering those areas where the Corporation is in compliance with applicable Commission requirements and approve a compliance plan for the remaining areas, if any, of noncompliance.

The Director may impose any appropriate terms and conditions. Unless otherwise directed by the Director, the amendment and the Director's decision shall be final and effective upon issuance.

t (2) The Director may deny an application for an amendment to a f

certificate of compliance or not approve a compliance plan upon a written fmding that the -

I application is in noncompliance with one or more of the Commission's requirements for the plant, j

^

or that the compliance plan is inadequate to protect the public health and safety or the common defense and security.

1 1

(d)

Notice of decision - The Director shall publish notice of the decision in the Federal j

Register, (e) bitinns for review - The' Corporation, or any person whose interest may be affected and who submitted written comments in response to the notice of proposed acticn under 6 76.45(b),

2 4

8

. ~

FROM sUSEC 701-564-3210 1997,02-20 08:37

1. 831 P.09/24 i

I 1

or provided oral comments at any meeting held on the Director's decision under { 76.39, may file 1

a petition, not to exceed 30 pages, requesting review of the Director's decision. This petition f

must be filed with the Commission not later than ( 5 days after publication of the Federal Restister notice.

Any person described in this paragraph may file a response to any pe'ition for review, not t

to exceed 30 pages, within 10 days after the filing of the petition. The Commission shall nale on the petidon for review within 60 days after the publication of the Federal Resister notice, unless it extends the time for review, The Conunission may adopt, by order, further procedures that,.in its judgment, would serve the purpose of review of the Director's decision, l

l (f)

Commission action - The Commission may adopt, modify, or set aside the findings, l

conclusi6ns, conditions, or tenas in the Director's decision and'will state the basis ofits' action in writing.

(g)

Non-sinnificant amendments If pursuant to subparagraph (b), the Director determines that the activities are not significant, the Director shall issue a decision in accordance with subparagraph (c). No notice of proposed action or notice of the Director's decision shall be published. For such non significant amendments, any person whose interest may be affected may

. file a petition, not to exceed 30 pages requesting review of the Director's decision. This petition must be filed with the Commission not later than 30 days from the date of the Director's decision.

i Any person described in this paragraph may file a response to any petition for review, not to j

3.

I t

FROM IUSEC 301-564-3210 1997.02-20 08:38

• t831 P.10/24 1

exend 30 pages, within 10 days aAer the filing of the petition. The Commission shall rule on the 1

i l

petition for review within 60 days after the publication of the Esdgal Recister notice, unless it i

extends the time for review. The Commission may adopt, by order, further procedures that, in its j

judgroent, would serve the purpose of review of the Director's decision. The Commission may adopt, modify, or set aside the findings, conclusions, conditions, or terms in the Director's decision and will state the basis ofits action in writing.

l n

d a

l 1

s e

9 1

4 4

. - - _ - - - - -., ~ _.... ~.

.- _ ~ - ~. - -

FROM sUSEC 301-564-3210 1997.02-20 09:33 g331 F.11/24 i

r n

i foA fa m a M e f 0-I Cop-p;<hre* oP c es Psi AM l

$ 76.39 l

CA i 0-1-96 Edition)

Nuclear Reguicdory Commission must con the fonowing informa-ydine with the rel-(n) A decription of the funding pro-l s of subpart E gmrn to be established to ensure that tion:

l nuclear material of funds win be set aside and available for(1) The ormation specined in j

mficance will b* pro.

those aspects of the ultimate disposal { 76.35; or.

i nce with the relevant af waste and cepieted urantum, decon-(2) A stat ment by the Corporation that the N may rely upon the in.for-j abpart E: and tamination and decommissioning, re-S used to protect spe, Lating to the gaseous diffusion plants m&Clon pr0Vided in the previous l

'rfs.1 while in transig leased to the Corporation by the De-application (s) upon which the existing l

certincate in based. except for:

1 areas. all of which partment of Energy, which are the n-ivie fixed site under nancial responsibility of the Corpora-(1) Any Droposed changw in the exist-e appilcant. The :evet tion. The Corporation sh&B establish ing certin Ate of compusace condi-forded the material Scancial surety arrangenents to en-tions or huical safety requirements; nay not be lese than sure that sulacient funds win be avail-in) Any 4 oposed changes to the do&

j sams material while able for the ultimate disposal of ush aments stbanitted with the ptsvious l

Protected area from and depleted uranium, and decon-application in accordance with $76.36:

ramination and deconemiasioning ac-(iii) Any changes which the Corpora-tion has made without prior NRC ap-

• ribing the facility's tivities which are the nnancial respon-proval pq'uuant to 576.68; and.

sibility of the Corporation. The funding in 595.15(b) of thsa mechanism, such as prepayment, sur-(17) An$ changes to certincate condi.

procedures and con.

ety. insurance, or external sinking tions or 1echnical safety requirements ntnd. must ensure availability of funds for whict the Corporation has sought ection of clacained for any activities which are required to and receired Comminaion approval par-to a written request be completed both befors or after the suant to l'l6.%.

on. the Corporation return of the gaseous diffusion facili-(d) The changes which are submitted Commisofon the in.

ties to the Department of Energy in ac-as part of an application for renewalin ation described in cordance with the lease between the accordarce with paragraph (cX2) of this i

pter on Form W71.

Department and the Corporation. The section. must be in the form of specino i

hall also perrtn. ver.

n:.uding program must contain a basis changes t.o the doenmentation specined i

nata!!ation informs.

for cost estimates used to establish in $76.38. The changes must be marked g

Atading levels and must contain mes.r.s and dat4d for easy identific

'Ational Atomic En.

h4,p..

i ske any other action of adjusting cost estimates and associ-l i

em*nt th8 US4AEA sted fanding levels over the duration of 878J7 Fedeea! Basister mee86e -

r i

tent, ao set forth in the lous. The fnmim, program need The Oirector shan publish in the l

ter, not address funding for those aspects of FEDERAL RaotaTss:

f 1 of the program, as decontamMation and decomminaioning (a) netice of the niing of an appil-irocessing/ mana,,.

of the gaseous di!!bsion plants assigned catio specifying that ccpies of the of miand and rad!o-to the Department of EnerTy under the appli on, except for Reetricted Data.

deplaced uranium Atomic Energy Act of 1954. as amend

• Unclassined Controned Nuclear Infor-

-tions. This descrip.

ed. The Corporation should address the mation. Claammed National Security

[

ited to processing' adequacy of the financing mechardm Information. Safeguards Information.

i disposal activities selected in its annual application for Proprietary Dats.,

or other l

iperation of the ft.

withholdable information will be rnade certincatico.

available for the public inspection in j

' lease to the Cor, l

ation must also in.

675J4 Annuat ronewals.

the Commission's Public Document Room at 2120 L Street. NW. (Lower 1

in of the waste (a) After issuance by the Commtmaion Level), Washttgton, DC, and in the l

F enrichment oper-of the initfA1 certincate of compliance local public document room at, or near j

tes of depleted ura,.

and/or an approved compliance plan, the location of the plant);

pected. ident!nca-the Corporation shan ine an annual ap.

(b) A notice of opportunity for writ-j s contained in the p11 cation for renewal, as required by ten public comment on the application:

j chemical forms of I

n and waste, plans (76.31.

and pleted uranium and (b) Information contained in previous (c) The date of any schedu!sd public applications, statements, or reports meeting regarding the application.

r ultimate dispost.

d depleted urarJum nied with the Commission may be ref.

he facilities to the erenced as part of the application. pro-578.38 Public usesting.-ql;dtp f*A{

p vided that the reference is clear and (a) A public meeting win be held on j

fy under the terms the Director. in his or t

'nent between the specinc.

{

ament Corporation (c) An application for renewal is sute an application fetetTnines tha,t a meet-her discretion, i

ject to the requirements in 576.33 s.nd j

437 Ma h/t-sMh#

den h

-_ _.___ _ __ _ __ _ _ ~

F P Ot1 USEC sci-sc.w-2210 1 m.e2-20 05'33 8'331 F 12'2" l

1 1

I S 76.41 10 CFR Ch. I (1-I-96 Edition)

Nucl#Cf R ing is in the public interest with re-

-se oi a.%-daee& " ~ a m hf1'rv %

I spect to a decision on the application.

tb) Conduct of public meeting.

proposed activities as required t' gettincatt fiFI'he Director shan conduct any 2e riginal certiacate.

epation of g

ta) The (b). ector's dec13:on. Upon rece public meetarg held on the application.

f adequate i

tie defporation's applicatto (2) Pubhc meetings win take place l

e health im near the locale of the subject p! Ant, un-apnendmeh of the certificate /the rt.

sud secun less otherwise spec 20ed by the Direc-Meter will termine whether tle prb (b) The l

tor-posed activit. s are siga' ant,.4G !1f with the p i

s>. foUow the (3) A pubuc meeting will be open to ced a specified }n (c) The l

$4 76.37 a.nd 76 39.

t Director det.

with the all interested members of the public mines that the ac. ties are not si -

CFIt part and be conducted as deemed appro-ntncant, the D1 to U, after appr Reports "

i priate by the Director.

[

(4) Members of the public will be riate reMew, ne a p

- dy_--[n w,._... sion Mr7;.=

vestigat10 m

given an opportunity during a public i

neations:

(c) OctA offirmataan. Au pplication (1) Civi.

j meeting to make their views regarding for an enament of the cer case of PC88d 03 the application known to the Director-j i

(5) A transcript win be kept of each Smpi ce must be execu in.a

$19.30 of t I

public meeting.

4 o.s

-l by the Co tion tions of S' Origina i

(6) No Restricted Data. Claseined Na.

tional Security hformation Unclassi-

--f gamzatici

" ~ "

(2) The fled Controlled Nuclear brormation, gg p Form 3 n.

l Safeguards Infonnation, Proprietary rector's d j

I Data, or other withholdable informa. 9 76.51 Conditions of eerti8 cation.

C"L" OI tion may be introduced at the sneeting.

The Corporation shan comply with plan for !.

{

176.41 Record underlying decisions.

the certincate of compliance, any ap-the term proved compliance plan, and the re-days felic (a) Any decision of the Commission quirementa set forth and referenced in id) The or its designee under this part in any this e except as may be modined by with the CFR part proceeding regarding an application for the cert!ncate or approved compliance a certincate must be based on informa. plan.

tion Agal tion in the record and facts ofnciauy Iowing m

-m m

(1) C1"

~

4 g

(

(b) pub c om ents and cor-YA 2

oi 1

respondence in any proceedhg regard-In revie an applica for a e giy VW uons of s',

i ing an application for a cenincate tincate, includi visions of an, pg ganizauo.

must be made a part of the public compliance e

ctor shan gp.- (2) The docket of the proceeding, except ao consult with Environm Pro-,',gy i

with the provided under 10 CFR 2.790.

ection cy and solicit the Pnhrcq Protection Agene Wtt n LE6dgglater thL len 174.48 Annual data for decisi cision en am tn ti; ppli.^.tiv The Director will render a decision puance a i

on an application within 6 mcnths of N5 My mwal.

(e) the receipt of the applicatiqn unless the Director alters the date for dect-In any case in which the Corporation with the sion and publishes notice of the new has timely filed a sufncient annual ap-C.FR part date in the FIntash REGISTER.

pUcation for a, certificate of comp 11 3 gggggp 8

ance, the eti8 ting certincate of Compil-g geg; I

j T

A plication for amendment of ancc or approvea compliance plan does gg) - y' l

176.45 cert est*-

not expire until the appucation for a th

• e gg

'.e C - rih A.v.- ni. m ano certit!cate of compliance has been n-m naUy determined by the NRC For pur-(* 'ggny3 c addition to the annual appi

.cp poses of this rule, a sufncient applica-eg,,f for incation submitted uant tb tion is one that addresses all elementa M for a l'T6.31.

Ccrporatio may at arg of $76.36.

(2) 1 nd i

time apply

..ent of the ce -

ments iss i

}

tincate to cov sed new or mo 176.80 Regulatory requiremente which it sutrat ed actlyi

s. The L ene app -

• PPIY*

egg

=

atio ould contain sufcc The Nuclear Regulatory Commission that the

.on for the Director to make win use the following requirements for gpply.

I i

438 ypucF W Cri L_p.wsn &%f r-c 3

_. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - ~

d f

=

1 FROM USEC 301-564-3210 1997.02-20 08:39 88831 P 13/24 5

l l

h 5

4 6

576.62 yP gE 10 CTR Ch.10-I-96 Edition)

Nuclear 5 1

$76.82 Issuance of certi5cate and/or 3

approval of coespilame, plea.

a written finding that the applicatica g73.65 Ir 1

is in noncompliance with one or more (a) Upon a Guding of compliance with of the Comminafon's requirements for

-egulatic5 The ce the Commission's re tions for ineu. the plant, or that the complisace plan

' m ar e ance of a certificate d/or approval of is inadequate to protect the publit g

[a,7 Cr c3mpliaTn b the Director shaU health and safety or the common de.

ds sed c issue a written decision erntaini= the fense and security

• y 3

1

,, nedslon. The Director ma/Assee e'cer.

(b) The Director shall publish notice t$

5 h

{

(ad,,)

tincate of compliance covering those of the decision in the FEDERAL REQ.

c i

areas where the Corporation is in com.

ISTER.

w.au/4/ of gggggg pliance with applicable Commtanion m.

(c fore a denial of an application tion. nnd quirements and approve a compliance to a certiacate of compliance. the Di.

cordance plan for the remaining steas, if any, of i

concompliance. The Director may im.

rector shall advise the Corporation and Act. and (

the Department in writing of any areas pose say appropriate terms and condi. of concompliance with the Commis-g7aao E l tions.

(b) The Director shall publish notloe sion's regulations and offer the Depart.

certif) ment or the Corporation an opper.

(S) D of the decision in the FEDsRat Rao. tunity to submit a proposed compli, certincat 4

ISTER.

l ance plan prepared by the Departrnent to this p.

(c) The Corporation or any penon regarding the identined areas of non-18 '

i i

whose interest may be affected and compliance. The Director shall take d'Y'certif the s.

who submitted written comments in this action even if the Department or (b) The p

rezoonse tolho PEDERAL RaoIsTER No.

ge8 Itice on the applicitio3or compitam the Corporation has previously submit.

Commim y

ted a proposed compHance plan ad

$76.5 wh' (SM plan under 178.37, or provided oral com. dressing in whole or in part the identi.

terminate

]

menM any meeting held on the ap.

fled arena of noncompliance.

(

,,7!ffationdor compliance plan conducted p

p aeous c (d) The Corporation, or any person TF/'

tivit188 8 i

j pf under 178.39. may Ule a petition, not to whoes interest may be affected gel exceed 30 pages. requesting review of who submitted written co fgA cAte.

pM the Director's decision. This petition response to the PEDERAL 4

no-mit an in (c) If C 4

i raust be filed with the Commission not tice on the applicatio r complianca c.nder 174 1

later than 15 days after publication of plan under $78.37 or provided oral com-the FEDERAL REGISTER notica. Any per. ments as any meeting ham e W = ~ 3/, or before son dancribed in this paragraph may plicationger compuance plan conducted //a'g in the e file a response to any petition for re-operaticI under $76.39, may als a petition, not to i

View. not to exceed 30 pages, within lo exceed 30 pages, requesting review of planta.

{

days after the filing of the petition. the Director's decision. This petition 5 % 06 i Unless the Commission grants the pett-r ust be file <1 with the Commission not tion for review or otherwise acts with.

j in 60 days after the publioation of the later than 15 days after publication of (a) T1 the FEDDAL REGISTER notice. Any pet.

changes t

FEDERAL RzotsTEn nettoe, the Direc. son described in this poengraph may operatio tor's initial decision on the certisemee 03e a response to any petition for re-analysis

{

fapplication or compliance plan be-view. not to exceed 30 pages, within 10 sion app 3 gn4Wg comes effective and final. The Commin. days after filing of the petition. Unlesa sions of t

]

aion may adopt, by order. further pro-cedures that, in its judgment, would the Commiselon grants the petition for (g) g i

i I

serve the purpose of review of the Dt.

review or otherwise acts within 60 days written j

rector's decision.

after the publication of the FEDnAL M

onstrate:

EsotSTER notice, the Director's i pp.A

'esult it 2

(d) The Comm'ssion may adopt. mod. decision on the eest&Aeete, pp cation a.nd Safet 3

ify. or set aside the findings, conclu-or comphance plan becomes effective eufigy, o pions, conditiona. or terms in the Di.

and final. The Commission may adopt.

by re"%

i 1

rector's decision and will state the by order fttrther procadures that, in its am j

basis ofits actica in writing. (S^8A judgment, would serve the purpose of proved D review of the Director's decision.

GD 178.44 Denial of certi5ce or enespil-(e) The Commisalon may adopt, mod-I' C ti"

ance plan.

ify, or set aside the findings, conclu-guards.:

(a) The Director may deny an appu-sions, conditions. or terms in the Di.

(4) Th cation fo a certificate of compusace rector's decision and will state the char.se; j

or not app ve a compliance plan upon basis ofits action in writing.

CAL' Of C ra 440 i

i i

i

FRCM sVSEC 301-564-3210 1997.02-20 08:40

1. 831 P.14/24 T

BENEFITS OF PROPOf.ED CHANGES Minimims the Changes to Part 76 Proposed Changes Rely on Much of the Language in Existing Rule Consolidates Amendment Process into One Regulation Eliminates Unnecessary Delays In Implementing Plant or Program Changes Amendments Become Effective Upon Issuance ofDirectors Decision Maintaine Current Provisions for Public Notice on Significant Amendments Maintains Current Provisions for Written Public Comments and Public l

Meetings for Significant Amendments Petitions for Commission Review May Be Filed Consistent with Materials License Amendment Process i

(

2/20/97 6

. _ ~.

FROM sUSEC 301-564-3210 1997.02-20 08:40

1. 831 P.15/24 10 CFR 76.68(b)

Treatment of"As-Found" Conditions 10 CFR 76.68(b):

i

" The Corporation shall evaluate any as-found conditions that do not agree with the plant's programs, plans, policies, and operations in accordance with paragraph (a) of this part...."

e Treatment of As-Found Conditions 1.

Identification 2.

Evaluation Operability detennination Place plantin a safe condition Reportability detennination 3.

Ultimate Resolution (a)

Correct the as-found condition to conform to the Application, or (b)

Correct the Application to conform to the as-found condition h

2/20/97 1

FROM sySEC 301-564-3210 1997.02-20 08:40

1. 831 P.16/24 1

10 CFR 76.68(b)

Treatment of"As-Found" Conditions The wording of 10 'CFR 76.68(b) does not add any value to the above process:

The focus should be on operability and then the corrective action.

10 CFR 76.68(a)is directed at propcsed changes to the plant or plant operations (i.e., prior review and approval). An as-found condition is not a proposed change.

Operability determinations could be unnecessarily impacted or delayed.

Additional submittals will need to be made to the NRC.

e

==

Conclusions:==

10 CFR 76.68(a) is properly focused on proposed changes to the plant or plant operations.

The evaluation of original as-found conditions in accordance with 10 CFR 76.68(a) serves no useful purpose.

NRC Generic Letter 91-18 provides useful guidance in this area.

['

2/20/97 2

F 3

9 g.

SAFETY CRITERIA / STANDARDS NEEDED New Safety Analysis - August 1997 Purpose ofsafety analysis:

- screen hazards

- determine consequences of significant sequences g

- determine if structures / systems / components / processes are adequate f

- determine what SSCs require additional assurance measures j

10 CFR 76 soc Criteria = 30 mg U uptake,25 REM offsite Dominant risk is onsite i.e. Worker Safety; no criteria for NEIProposed 10 CFR 70 USEC Comments re: 10 CFR 70 -2/10/97

+g

'Needed Y

- recognition of benefit of unambiguous criteria al

- good faith effort to address b

8 S

?

e 2

!FROM sUSEC 301-564-3210 1997.02-20 08t41 0831 P.18/24

/

United States Ennchment Corporation

~

2 DemocracyCenter 6903 Rockledge Drive

..i Bethesda.MD 2C817

. j).+( n -Ifnited States

• U 58" Tel: (301) 564-32c0

'f,,

Fe. Enrichrnent Corporation

.. _y;a.

7,.,; :

February 10,1997 Secretary SERIAL: GDP 97-005 US NuclearRegulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 Attention: Docketing and Service Branch i

Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant (PGDP) l Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant (PORTS)

Docket Nos. 70-7001 and 70-7002 PRM-70-7, NEPs Petition for Rulemsking on 10 CFR Part 70

Dear Sir:

On behalf of the United States Enrichment Corporation (USEC), I am pleased to provide comments on NErs " Petition for R@m*Wg on 10 CFR Part 70" as noticed in the Federal Register on November 26,1996. Although the gaseous difusion plants managed by USEC are certified under 10 CFR Part 76 and, therefore, not subject to the proposed revisions to Part 70, USEC offers these comments 1)in the interest of the USEC AVLIS facility which is docketed under Part 70, 2) to share USEC's experience assessing the integrated safety of the gaseous diffusion plants, and 3) to provide as much consistency as is appropdate between Part 70, Part 76 d otherNRC guidance and regulations.

As noted in the enclosed comments, USNDendorses NETS petition and is providing certain sugges changes to further the objectives of the petition. USEC believes that the language of the proposed rulemakmg should be revised to explicitly clarify the intended use of the performance criteria; namely that the purpose of the criteria is to guide the Commission and licensee in their evaluation of the suitability of(1) the events chosen for evaluation (i.e., those with consequences of concern) and (2) the identification determination as to the safety significance of Structures, Systems and Components (SSCs).

The revisions proposed by USEC are intended to ensure tiet the primary intent of the rule is to provide reasonable assurance of public health and safety rather than that specific performance criteria are not exceeded. Revisions are also suggested to the criteria themselves.

l l

Finally, USEC suggests revising the proposed language of Q70.40 to clarify that the backfit provision applies to the results of theISAs.

n.

~.~.

FROM IUSEC 301-564-3210 1997.02-29 08 41

1. 831 P.19/24 d

y Doch(mg and ServiceBranch

- i :'C T ~

.m w

...,...s,

'..- wi m u n -

7 v.3:s a w; m = <-

m.G,.DP, 97..., r.,.... s....

dr e m.

0.05.

2.a. m.. ~.,. x..s...<.,.s.~t.

. 1.

.~.0... p.s.,

c., 4.. m.,..

... s., i.

= =-

p, s,..

t w

.f.

.~a._

.~

..., n.....

a.. ss m.

-e

,,.s _s... '.

en n

..u.,.......,

... ~..

~.

, +....... <

.,, ~

.,.,.,.... ~.

...2 s..c.m.

.....c 4

. m;r7. a.,

...+., y. m

w...; i:s,c. :..:. -,..

,, e x.

n,.

...g e..

~

F :yti./.,.'.

<Wewould be leased to dimb thescE. kwith you. Please contact me'at (301) 564-3413 or id.

'.M2.o Ms. TIJ..ade Jarriel at (301) 564-3247. *....* -

v.

+. -. ':

a

~

..c.

c

. Ac : e

... ;.:..Si.nc.e. rely, g,

. c..

m 4.$

.4 Robert L. Woolley i

Nuclear Regulatory Assurance and Policy Manager a.

Enclosure cc:

M. Fertel, NEI gl 4

e

.\\

1 a

l 1

.'s i

.)

.N

%j

.e

.e b

1 m

FROr1 sySEC 301-564-3210 1997,02-20 08:42 0831 P.IO/24 UNITED STATES ENRICHMENT CORPORATION Comments on NEI's Petition for Rulemaking on 10 CFR Part 70, PRM-70-7 Introductiori USEC has been engaged with the NRC since 1993 in rulemaWg and certification of the two gaseous dNnn plants under 10 CFR Part 76, which bears a very close relationship to Part 70. Indeed, in the Part 76 Statements of Consideration, the Commission wrote:

"In developing Part 76, the staff took into account the ongoing effort to revise Part 70, which applies to licensing of other fuel cycle facilities. The staff believes that Part 76 will be compatible with anticipated future changes to Part 70. However, if the final revisions to Part 70 (in 1996) call for a revision to Part 76, appropriate revisions will be considered and the backfit rule would apply."

USEC clearly has an interest in the content of Part 70 due to its relationship to Part 76. Based on our experience, we believe that forma!!ntion, by rulemaking, of criteria for determining areas ofconcern and the importance of SSCs for fuel cycle facilities is essential.

There is little stored energy at the fuel cycle facthties nor are there large concentrations of radioactivity that would pose a significant public safety concern offsite except in the most extreme and unusual scenarios. However criticality, exposure to chemical hazards from radioactive materials of either the public or workers, and material diversion are areas of concern. To date, the NRC has not established cicarly identified safety criteria or goals for these hazards. Explicit goals against which these plants can j

be evaluated should be established clearly and unambiguously as part of this rulemakmg.

Key policy issues that should be considered by the Commission as part of the rulemaking include:

- Worker Safety

- Prevention of Accidental Criticalities i

- Operability Assurance of Systems, Structures and Components These fundamental policy issues were integral to the GDP certification experience, are embedded in this rulemakmg and, USEC believes, are best addressed through the rulemaking process. The following comments address each of these issues and how they relate to our clarifying comments on NErs Petition.

FRCH IUSEC 301-564-3210 1997.02-20 08: 42

1. 831 P.21/24 Enclosme to GDP 97-005 USECs Commena onPRM-70-7 Page 2 of5 Ca arts on NEPs Prosa=ad Revision to Part 70 USEC fuHy supports the concept, and many of the details, of the NEI proposed revisions to Part 70.

In particular, we support the requirement that simitar integrated safety analyses be performed for the existing fuel cycle fnMa=* that standards be **ahlichad to detennine the areas of concern to be analyzed; and that a h=Mt provision be included to assure that costs, as well as benefits, are considered for changes to the fadlities. Incorporating the backfit provision into the rulmaWg win allow for reasoned evaluation of the need for danges to these facihties and the most cost effective means of d4.L those changes.

5 NErs proposed revisions would require these analyses to be completed before the NRC imposes ch=aaa=

la programs or procedures which might not prove necessaty after the resuhs of the analyses are ev=b=+ad USEC recom==A= certain modifications to NErs proposal as follows:

Paa a=ahle Assurance of Publichlth and Safety The language of the proposed rul=2Wg should be revised to explicitly clarify the intended use of the performance criteria; namely that the purpose of the criteria is to guide the Commission and the licensee in their evaluation of the suitability of(1) the events chosen for evaluation (i.e., those with consequences of concern) and (2) the detennination as to the safety significance of SSCs. Numerical Imnts can not represent the wridazion of all factors significant to the question of reasonable assurance of public health and safety. Factors that go to the credibility of the event such as, probability of occurrence, existing administrative controls, existing physical and engineering controls, and the W=ble nature of these hazards (i.e., visible and noxious) need to be appropriately considered before making a finding that " reasonable assurance" has not been provided. The current language of the proposed th=Wg might be interpreted to suggest that the performance criteria are absolute limits, exceedance of which implies that the public health and safety cannot be reasonably assured. Rather, the criteria should be used to identify the events ofconcern to be considered in the ISA and SSCs of importance. The regulation should provide a mechanism for determining whether there is reasonable assurance of public health and safety and not reasonable assurance that the criteria are not exceeded.

USEC has proposed a modiScation to the NEI wording to strengthen this conc $.

Worker Safety A key challenge in certifying the gaseous diffusion plants has been addressing the NRC staffs appropriate concern for the protection of onsite workers under accident conditions. Besides NRC's oversight, the fuel cycle facilities are also regulated in this area by OSHA and, under these regulations, perform Process Safety Management and Hazard Analyses. 10 CFR 76 does not explicitly address chemical toxicity from radioactive materials for workers. However, many of the systems that have been identified for additional quality controls at the gaseous diffusion plants and many of the restrictions in the Technical Safety Requirements were established speci5cally in response to worker safety considerations under accident conditions. ' Imposition of requirements without a clear basis against which to demonstrate adequate safety is not an appropriate way to establish regulatory requirements. Because worker safety appears to be a key underlying motive behind the NRC staffs

)

interest in revising 10 CFR 70 and imposing new requirements on fuel cycle facilities, it is essential i

that this issue be explicitly recogmzed and considered in this rulemaking proceeding.

1 NErs proposalin this regard suggests that the mquirements of 10 CFR 20 be satisfied. We believe that i

NErs intention was to make it clear that the ISA be used to demonstrate compliance vdth 10 CFR 20.

I Fuel cycle facilities are currently required to comply with 10 CFR 20. First, USEC believes that

FROM IUSEC 301-554-3210 1997.o2-20 o8:43

1. 831 P.22/24

/

Enclosure to GDP 9"/-005 USEC's Cammenen onPRM 70-7 q

Page 3 of 5 i

j analysis is not required to comply with 10 CFR 20. Compliance with this requirement has been Q

achieved to date through the implementation of Radiation Safety Programs and without specific analysis requirements. Second, this would be a new use of analysis to d==nawe compliance with i

this 10 CFR 20 requirement. The analytical n*hmh to demonstrate compliance with 10 CFR 20 are i

not h%.d and, without further guidance on how to demonstrate compliance using analysis, the d

requirements to do so remain unclear. Therefore, USEC has proposed to delete reference to 10 CFR 20 in NEI's rule langnage.

Accidental Criticalities 1

Fuel cycle facihties are already required to detect accidental criticalities under 10 CFR 70.24. This regulation does not, however, sp,4._ny address prevention of accidental criticalities. Currently, the Nuclear Criticality Safety Program requires analyses of the potential for aMdantal criticalities during operations. Criticality has long been a risk at fuel cycle facihties that has been considered acceptable if compliance with the double contingency principle is demonstrated. The double contingency principle as stated in ANSI /ANS-8.1-1984, Section 4.2.2 is as follows: " Process designs should,in general, incorporate sufBcient factors of safety.to require at least two unlikely, independent, and concurrent changes in process conditions before a criticahty accident is possible." USEC has proposed a MMan to 70.24 to clarify that licensees be required to demonstrate that adequate controls and protective measures are in place to provide reasonable assurance that accidental criticalities are prevented and that compliance with this requirement may be achieved through satisfaction of the j

double contingency principle.

J l

Assurance The last sentence ofNErs proposed 70.40(a) indicates that SSCs be classified on the basis of safety significance and commensurate controls applied. USEC understands this to allow for the imposition ofcontrols to assure operability based on the importance to safety of SSCs and the risk to the facility their inoperability poses. The determination of the safety significance of SSCs and commensurate controls to assure operability has been a challenging issue for certification of the gaseous diffbsion plants. Indeed, no clear criteria or standards were adopted as part of the certification process to etmify SSCs. Lacking a clearmethod of detennining the safety significance of SSCs and appropriate j

quality controls, we believe a larger number of SSCs were selected as safety significant than if consistent classification criteria had been utilized in the process. Signikantly, SSC's that are relied on to demonstrate compliance with tne double contingency principle for criticality prevention were included in the quahty program. This may or may not have been appropriate. USEC believes the ISA should provide the basis for determining the importance of the SSCs and that operability assurance should then be applied commensurate with risk. USEC has proposed a modification to the NEI wording to strengthen this concept.

Backfit Provision USEC especially supports the inclusion of the backfit provision ( 70.76) as a sound basis for determining if modifications or additions to systems, structures or components of a plant, or to the procedures or organization required to operate the plant arejustified by considering both their beneSts and associated costs. The existing facilities that will be subject to this proposed rule, like our gaseous diffusion plants, have been operated safely for many years. While safety can almost always be improved, the key question for existing facilities is what improvements to safety, if any, are necessary to achieve an acceptable level of safety, and, beyond that, what changes are clearly beneScial given

FROM USEc 391-554-3219 1937,02-20 68:44 N831 P.23/24 Naare to CDP 97 005 USEC's Comments onPRM-70-7 j

Page4 of5 l

fair consideration of associated costs. The backf" proposal provides for these determinations to be

.i made in an open, public process. To assure that there is no ambiguity about the timing of the

.I applicability of the proposed backfit provision, USEC suggests an addition to the proposed laag'=ge of $70.40. This addition would make it clear that plant or procedure y proposed by the NRC as a result ofits consideration of the resuhs of the ISAs for Was facilities would be subject to the backfit rule. This is consistent with NErs intent as reflected on page 8 ofits petition, but it should be made clearin the rule textitself Imaltmaaling.Gaidanst Establishment of the requirement is only the first step. Guidance should be promnig*,A on the requind format and content of the analysis required. This guidance would logically follow imposition of the requirement by rule, but, as discussed in reference to 10 CFR 20, it should be clear before rul==Wg that guidance is indeed available. The AIchE " Guidelines for Hazard Evaluation Procedures. Second Edition with Worked Examples," 1992 is representative of the types of analysis that should be required.

O

FRCM USEC 301-564-3210 1997.02-20 08:44 stS31 P.44/24 l

i e,0 En:losure to GDP 97-005 USEC's Comme:r.s on PRM 70-7 Page 5 of 5 i

USEC's Modifications to NEI's Prooosed Rule Language USEC's modifications to the NEI proposed 10 CFR 70 language reflect the recommendations discussed above. USEC recommmA that the NRC approve the NEI petition, as modified by below:

l l

70.4 Dennitions l

fU o u M c W C H ' W 2 ih2l5tes 2.~L]W

^ -

--m-m

.~ g a

mmem. :.,m_ e._,-

g m

.g l

Sadt-

_[

___ _ ~-_

m

~~

~

70.40 InteeratedSafety Assessment (a) Uramum processing, fuelfabrication, and uranium enrichmentplant licensees licensed under 10 CFR Part 70, shallperform an integratedsafety assessment (ISA), orprovide an acceptable l

alternanve integratedapproach to safety, to determine the &~ifiQ[fQWJfj@)Yi g@SSCr) l adprograms that will be used by the licensee to protectpublic health andsafety and on the basis of the resulu ofthe ISA, implement changes to SSCs or associatedlicensee programs lisifEEIM ther prodde reasonable assurance fg@ltT@MQ@Q4]@ mat th:p::fc. ;== crit:ria::tfonh in j 7C. -10 @) =c noi==2d Licensees will classify SSCs on the basis ofsafety sigmficance andwill 1

apply cont:': 65WihQifEsTi(Mommensurate with that classification.

l l

l

@) The ISA willidennfy andevninnte those ha:ards that could result in not meeting any of the followingperformance criteria andwilldetermine whether adequate controls andprotective measures are inplace toprovide reasonable assurance ffj@ib%QYaTQ thel:

y) 2: requircnient: :f1 CD P= 20 ar: cati:jicd; Q)-accidental criticalirj arc avoii:d; =i Q)for accident conditons. it is unlikely that any member ofthepublic off the site will receive a radiation dose of 25 rem total effective dose equivalent, an intake of 30 milligrams of uranium in solubleform, or an exposure to hydrogenfluoride in air equivalent to immersionfor 30 minutes in a concentration of 25 milligramsper cubic meter.

'.,, u ~~

._..--,,,,o y....

$@5ke$hf

$N & 70$i5 [ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~

Y f5

~ ' ! ~'~ l'~

~

% 70.:4 Criticality accident reautrements k

ygg e

w e

w :

wao e

m mem y nex mn m

x t

u w.

e m.

q.

g

. g. -

ww 2 ma=

uma=ecx.-~

7M r^*ii %'Mererga%.,th -- am_$mme.n. _ surg, &,,.vla_ hen,. mp._uw

.t:pM.'. ';tT: R

y*,

ggce. y 3

~

i

(

_