ML20203J546
| ML20203J546 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 04/26/1995 |
| From: | Rathbun D NRC OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL AFFAIRS (OCA) |
| To: | Faircloth L SENATE, ENVIRONMENT & PUBLIC WORKS |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20203J328 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-97-384 NUDOCS 9712220008 | |
| Download: ML20203J546 (1) | |
Text
-
[Nk UNITED STATES
.p
)
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2
WASHINGTON. D.C. asses com
- %...../
April 26, 1995 LIhe Honorable Lauch Faircloth, Chairman Subcomittee on Clean Air, Wetlands, Private Property and Nuclear Safety Comittee on Environment and Poblic Worie United States Senate-.
Washington, DC 20510 P
- Mr. Chairman:
On r..;ruary 4,1993, the American Mining Congress petitioned the NRC to amer.d 10 CFR Parts 170 and 171 to alleviate what the petitioner claimed are inequitable NRC fees assessed its members.
Although the petition has been denied, the following actions requested by the petitioner have already been implemented by the NRC:
- 1) effective with the FY 1994 final fee rule published July 20, 1994, the Department of Energy (DOE) is being assessed fees for costs associated with NRC's review of DOE sites pursuant to the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act; and 2) available data supporting the Part 170 licensing and inspection billings are being provided with the bills issued to uranium recovery licensees and applicants.
In its continuing efforts to improve the NRC fee progran., the Commission also included several changes in the proposed FY 1995 fee rule, published in the federal Register on March 20, 1995, for public comment, that would improve the equity of fees. These improvements will result in reduced annual fees for the uranium recovery class of licensees.
For example, the NRC proposed an alternate method for distributing costs for certain activities that raise fairness and equity concerns, such as those related to the NRC regulatory support to the Agreement states. The Commission also proposed a method for stabilizing annual fees and therefore limiting relatively large increases that result from factors such as a decline in the number of licensees in the l
uranium recovery class.
Enclosed is a copy of the Notice of Denial which'is being transmitted to the Federal Register for publication.
Sincerely, Dennis Rathbun, Director l
Office of Congressional Affairs
Enclosure:
Notice of Denial cc:. Senator Bob Graham l
f g22 971217
, n,s W NNIG97-384_-
l. :.
frn
,,. -.,\\
UNITED STATES p
)
' NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON. D.C. WeHeM N...../
May 5, 1995 T
Honorable Lauch Faircloth, Chairman ubcomittee on Clean Air, Wetlands, Private
~
Property and Nuclear Safety Comittee on Environment and Public Works United States Senate.
Washington, DC 20510
Dear Mr. Chairman:
This letter is to inform you of NRC actions concerning the certification of the U. S. Enrichment Corporation (USEC) gaseous diffusion plants in Paducah, Kentucky and Piketon, Ohio.
As required by the Energy Policy A::t of 1992, USEC submitted its initial application to the Nuclear Regulatory Comission (NRC) on April 24, 1995, requesting compliance certification of the two plants.
The NRC published a Federal Recister notic.e, announcing receipt of the USEC application and requesting public comments. Thu notice also announced public meetings in Paducah, Kentucky, and in Piketon, Ohio, to obtain public views on the initial certification of the plants. Under applicable NRC regulations, USEC's application is to be based on 10 CFR Part 76, " Certification of Gaseous Diffusion Plants," which includes procedural requirements, generally applicable NRC health and safety standards, technical safety requirements, and safeguards and security requirements specific to the gaseous diffusion plants.
Our preliminary review of USEC's application indicates that it does not contain enough information for NRC to comence a certification review to make the necessary compliance determination.
Therefore, we have notified USEC
{ Enclosure 1) that the submitted application is rejected and they must submit a new application.
We are also issuing a press release (Enclosure 2) and a Federal Reaister notice (Enclosure 3), cancelling the public coment period and public meetings. They will be rescheduled when we receive an acceptable application.
It is important to note that this action does not constitute a finding that the USEC plants are unsafe or in noncompliance, but rather that the documentation submitted by USEC did'not contain enough information for initiating formal review under NRC regulations.
Q Y 5 h */f _
i L.
The Honorable Lauch Faircloth, Chairman -
This development will make it more difficult to compleen the initial certification-by our target date of October 1995, We have been planning for this review for two years, and we believe that we have made every effort to cooperate witti USEC in comunicating our expectations regarding the content.of its application. We will continue to be available to USEC for the discussions needed to assist them in their effort to prepare a new application. We will keep you informed of any further developments with respect to our responsibilities under the Energy Policy Act, and will submit our first annual report to Congress on the status of the USEC plants in early 1996.
Sincerely,
//
sI xecutive Director for Operations
Enclosures:
- 1) Letter to USEC
- 2) Press Release
- 3) Federal Reaister Notice cc: Senator Bob Graham
~
L
- , ; (.
~
&n % g i
b
- UNITED STATES p
j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS810N i
' wasmuoton, o.c. memn May 5, 1995 LMr. William H. Timbers, Jr.
President and Chief Executive Officer
- United States Enrichment Corporation-2 Democracy Center 6903
- Rockledge Drive Bethesda, E 20817
Dear MrL Timbers:
On April 24,-1995, the United States Enrichment Corporation-(USEC) delivered to the NRC.its application dated April-18, 1995, for a Certificate of Compliance for the Portsmouth and Paducah Gastous Diffusion Plants (GDPs).
The NRC staff has completed a preliminary review of the content of the application to determine the. adequacy of the submittals as a basis for NRC to commence a complete certification review. As you are awart, 10 CFR 576.35 sets forth the required content for the initial application.
The NRC staff has determined that the submittal of April 18, 1995 does not meet the requirements of 10 CFR 576.31 and 176.35 for content of an initial application and, accordingly, the hRC is rejecting the application.
.The application does not contain adequate information to provide a basis for NRC to review GDP operations for compliance with 10 CFR Part 76. Based on the F
application as submitted, the NRC staff cannot independently determine that the public health-and safety, worker safety, the environment, special nuclear With few material, and classified matter will be adequately protected.
exceptions, no area of the application provides sufficient sn'ormation to allow the staff to determine compliance.
Furthermore, the a,, plication does not appear to contain commitments to many longstanding safety requirements and procedures established under De>artment of Energy. management to assure continued safe operation, and wtich form the basis for 10 CFR Part 76.
Our decision to reject your application does not constitute a determination that GDP operations are unsafe or in noncompliance.
However, it will be necessary for USEC to submit a new application in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR 176.31 and 10 CFR 576.35.
In addition, we previously raised with you our concern over the adequacy of USEC onsite presence with respect to oversight of contractor activities in operation of the GDPs.
Your letter dated April 5, 1995, and your application do not resolve our concern.
USEC should also at 'ress. this issue when preparing a new application.
4
- l f
g
/%
UNITED STATES
[.g,,)
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs S
E 7gj Washington, D.C. 20555 No.
95-59 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE i
Tel. 301-415-8200 (Friday, May 5, 1995)
Internet:OPA9NRC. GOV i
NRC REJECTS APPLICATION.70R URANIUM ENRICHMENT PLANTS; POSTPONES PUBLIC MEETINGS The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has rejected an application from the U.S. Enrichment Corporation (USEC) for initial certification of uranium enrichment plants located near Paducah, Kentucky, and Pikaton, Ohio, because it does not include adequate information for NRC to review plant operations for I
compliance with NRC regulations.
Two public meetings scheduled May 23 and 24 have been postponed.
In a May 5 letter to William H. Timbers, Jr., President and Chief Executive Officer of USEC, Carl J. Paperiello, Director of NRC's Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, said:
" Based on the application as submitted, the NRC staff cannot independently determine that the public health and safety, worker safety, the environment, special nuclear material, and classified matter will be adequately protected....Furthermore, the application does not appear to contain commitments to many longstanding safety requirements and procedures established under Department of Enstrgy management to assure continued safe operation, and which form the basis for" NRC regulations concerning the plants.
In addition, Dr. Paperiello's letter said the NRC previously raised with USEC the agency's concern over the adequacy of USEC onsite presence with regard to oversight of contractor activities in operation of the facilities.
An April 5 USEC letter and the application for certification do not resolve this concern, Dr.
Paperiello said, and USEC should also addrsss this issue when preparing a new application.
The NRC's decision to reject the application, which was submitted April 24, is not a determination that the operations of the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant and the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant (located near Piketon) are unsafe.
However, USEC will need to submit a new application for certification to the NRC.
ENCLOSURE 2 l
i e
)
i The two DOE-owned. plants have operated.since the mid-1950s i
under-DOE regulatory oversight.
They use a gaseous diffusion process to enrich uranium hexafluoride gas in-the' Uranium-235 isotope, so that the material can be used as nuclear fuel in civilian nuclear power plants.
As required by the Energy Policy Act of 1992, DOE has leased the plants for operation to USEC.
The Act also required NRC to establish regulations for certifying that plant operations provide adequate safe:y, safeguards and security (NRC established the regulations la st. October 24) and to certify the plants annually for compliance with certification standards.
In his letter, Dr. Paperiello recommended that Mr. Timbers schedule a meeting with the NRC to discuss methods for assuring that the next application submitted by USEC will be adequate for NRC review.
The two previously announced public meetings'to discuss the application for certification were scheduled for Nay 23 in Paducah and Nay 24 in Pikaton.
The meetings will be rescheduled when USEC has submitted a new application.
NRC also intends to issue'a new Federal Register notice and invite written comments on the new application when it is received.
l I
l l
l I
w..,a.
i k
(7590-01)
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COP 911SSION
[ DOCKET N05. 70-7001; 70-7002]
UNITED STATES ENRICHMENT CORPORATION:
PADUCAH GASEOUS DIFFUSION PLANT; PORTSMOUTH GASEOUS DIFFUSION PLANT; NOTICE OF CANCELLATION OF COPMENT PERIOD AND CANCELLATION OF PUBLIC MEETINGS DUE TO INADEQUATE APPLICATION FOR CERTIFICATION The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) received by letter dated April 18, 1995, an application from the United States Enrichment Corporation (USEC) for the f aitial certification of the gasecus diffusion plants (GDPs) located near Paducah, Kentucky and Piketon, Ohio.
Notice of receipt of this application along with notice of coment period and public meetings was published in the Federal Reaister on April 28, 1995 (60 FR 210!!). However, NRC's preliminary review of the application indicates.that the application does not contain enough information for NRC to determine compliance with NRC regulation 10 CFR Part 76.
Therefore. USEC has been notified that it must submit a new application. Note that this determination does not constitute a finding that the GDP operations are unsafe or in noncompliance, The public comment period from April 28, 1995 to June 15, 1995, and the public meetings schaduled for May 23 and May 24, 1995, have been cancelled.
They will be rescheduled at a later date when USEC submits the new application.
Copies of the application for certification (except for classified and l
proprietary portions withheld in accordance with 10 CFR 2.?90, " Availability of Public Records"), dated April 18, 1995, will continue to be available for i
I f690 7QS O hy6
\\9..:'.,
~
\\
public inspection and copying at the Commission's Public Document Room (PDR) and Local Public Document' Rooms (LPDR) estabitshed 'or the gaseous diffusion plants. Upon receipt, USEC's new application will also be made available at the PDR and respective LPDR's.
Copies of related correspondence and staff-evaluations (except for portions withheld in accordance with 10 CFR 2.790) will continue to be made available at these locations.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Rocio Castaneira, telephone (301) 415-8103; Mr. Carl B. Sawyer, telephone (301) 415-8174; or Ms. Merri Horn, telephone (301) 415-8126; Office of Nuclear Mater tal Safety and Safeguaras, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555.
Dated at Rockville Maryland, this #
day of May 1995.
FOR THE NUCLEAR FlGULATORY COMMISSION.
~
John W. N. Hickey, Chief, Enrichment Branch, Division of Fuel Cycle Safety and Safeguards Docket Nos. 70-7001 & 70-7002 2
\\