ML20216G484
| ML20216G484 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant, 07007001 |
| Issue date: | 12/05/1997 |
| From: | Mcgaffigan E NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Hoyle J NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20216G429 | List: |
| References | |
| SECY-97-270-C, NUDOCS 9804200371 | |
| Download: ML20216G484 (12) | |
Text
.
NOT ATION VOTE RESPONSE SHEET TO: John C. Hoyle, Secretary FROM: COMMISSIONER MCGAFFIGAN
SUBJECT:
SECY-97-270 - ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS ON THE GASEOUS DIFFUSION PLANTS LOCATED NEAR PADUCAH, KENTUCKY, AND PORTSMOUTH, OHIO Approved V Disapproved Abstain Not Participating Request Discussion COMMENTS:
See attached comments and edited pages, v n-SIG TURE lb()(j
/
Release Vote /X / 4 DATE Withhold Vote / /
Entered on "AS" Yes X No gg42po0[isfdc!**
, ,CORRE,SPONDENCE PDR l
Commissioner McGaffiaan's comments on SECY-97-270:
I approve of the Annual Report to Congress on the Gaseous Diffusion Plants subject to the following comments.
- 1. In response to the staff requirements memorandum dated September 1.8,1997, Chapter 5, " Certification Activities," discusses the need for NRC to make certain negative findings prior to issuing a recertification to the U.S. Enrichment Corporation (USEC) or a certification to USEC's successor. I suggest that a portion of this discussion also be included in Chapter 11, " Compliance with Applicable Laws" (see attached).
- 2. Chapter 8, " Regulatory Activities," should include a discussion to inform Congress that NRC modified its regulations to be in conformance with Public Law No.104-134, the
.USEC Privatization Act (see attached).
- 3. Chapter 11 should be modified to inform Congress of potentially significant enforcemer.t actions under consideration by NRC that result from apparent violations wliich occuned during the assessment period covered by this report.
Other editorial changes to the Annual Report are identified on the attached marked-up pages.
- E
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
% d. G. N"/* G w / w-This annual repon is being provided to gress as required by Section 1701 of the Atomic Energy Act (AEA). This is the st such repon to be issued. It covers the period from March 3,1997, the date when C) assumed regulatory oversight X responsibilities for the gaseous diffusion plants (GDPs), to September 30,1997.
Information reported in this repon are as of September 30,1997, unless otherwise specified. As directed by the AEA, the Department of Energy (DOE) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have been consulted regarding this repon. DOE provided regulatory oversight of both plants before March 3,1997, and continues to be responsible for regulatory oversight of ponions of both plants.
In accordance with the process described in the AEA and NRC regulations, NRC issued Cenificates of Compliance to the United States Enrichment Corporation (USEC), for the operation of the GDPs located near Paducah, Kentucky, and Ponsmouth, Ohio, on November 26,1996. After an interim period to allow an orderly transition from DOE oversight to NRC oversight, the cenificates of compliance became effective and NRC began regulatory oversight of USEC operations at the plants on March 3,1997. Through implementation of formal memorandums of understanding ( MOUs) and other cooperative NRC/ DOE efforts, transition from DOE regulatory oversight of the leased ponions of the GDPs to b C oversight was effeeu[in a safe, efficient, and effective manner.
mmp.a e the NW- Pghe y Cc-%:hC sumed regulatory oversight in X M 1997, the cah and Portsmouth GDPs have provided adequate protection of flo heal safety, nmental (HS&E) eendmens, and have generally operated in compll e with RC regulatory requirements. Offsite radiological doses, as well as doses to the workers, are very low, and well within regulatory limits. There have been no events, at either site, requiring activation of the emergency response centers, or involving a significant release of radioactive material.
.P aducah and Ponsmouth are generally in compliance Conditions at the GDPs with NRC regulations. Exc tons are described in Compliance Plans, provided for by the AEA and approved by NR , which document binding commitments for actions and schedules to achieve full ompliance. Progress has been made in completing issues in the Compliance Plans since e initial cenification, thereby bringing the plants closer to full compliance with NRC gulations than they were at the time of initial cenification in November 1996. For ose instances where, during the normal course of operation, violations of NRC re lations occurred, USE ook prompt actions to reestablish '
compliance, and developed plans to prevent recu ence.
ycia\\
ii
CONTENTS Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i i X Chapter 1 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Chapter 2 Gaseous Diffusion Plant Operations '. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Chapter 3 Status of Compliance Plan Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . _. . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Chapter 4 Health, Safety, and Environmental Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Chapter 5 Certification Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Chapter 6 Inspections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Chapter 7 Event Repons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Chapter 8 Regulatory Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Chapter 9 NRC Consultation with EPA and DOE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Chapter 10 Summary Assessment of Performarre . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Chapter 11 Compliance with Applicable Laws . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Appendices A. Abbreviations and Acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1 B. Compliance Plan Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-1 C. Amendments to Cenificates of Compliance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-1 D. NRC Inspection Report Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-1 iii
CHAPTER 1.,as tars di nr1 K. i' & .
.as cwh rdt ancimL.y " /
BACKGROUND aliima u E 2
-uld no v.r,t:ngo 02U w :,
ENERGY POLICY ACT
." t 3DNUEITMI 3J.;GDR In October 1992, Congress enacted the Energy Policy Act (EPAct) of 1992, which amended the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (AEA), t6 create the. United States Enrichment Corporation (USEC)'. Pmvisions of the AEA direct the U.ScDepsi...a= of Energy (DOE) to lease the gaseous diffusion plants (GDPs) in Piketo'n , Ohio, and Paducah, Kentucky, to a USEC. These GDPs produce enriched uranium (EU),.aWi the AEA specifies that USEC -
operate the GDPs efHciently and market EU on a profitable basis. Although the AEA established USEC as a goyernment corporation, the AEAJalso required that within 2 years after the transition date of July 1,1993, USEC prepare a plan ~for transferring ownership of USEC to private investors. In the Lease Agreement Between ne United States Department of Energy and The United States Enrichment Corporation (lan'se) dated July 1,1993, and in other subsequent agrenentc, DOE and USEC established the~ roles and res'p6nsibilities for each organization at both GDPs. The AEA als6 requireshC)in corisultation'with DOE and
~
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), to report at Mast misinaHy to Congress on the status of health, safety, and environmental (HS&E) conditicns at the'gaseBus diffusion uranium enrichment facilities. This report is the first I report. It u-wp- 3ses the period from March 3,1997, the date when NRC assdmed ry resp 56sibility, through September 30,1997, . .- .v n .ewy the t nsendruar of qyd hf the fiscal year. 'egensm burno-So .u -
&M si .{u ro q,s The AEA assigns safety," safeguards, and siauliy regulatory res'p onsibility at the USEC-operated GDPs to NRC. Further, the AEA requires that within 2 years of the date of the passage of the EPAct, NRC establish, by regulation, both: (1) safety, safeguards and security stnerds for the GDPs; and (2) a certification pi6dsi to ensure that USEC complies with these sene rds. This certification process is in lieu of any requirement for a license.
Thus, the AEA made NRC regulation of the GDPs conditional on the issuance of new regulations, which were to be promulgated by October 1994. In accordance with these requirements, NRC promulgated Title 10 of t';c U.S. Code ofFederalRegulations, Part 76 (10 CFR Part 76), " Certification of Gaseous Diffusion Plants," in September 1994.
..v % a n.,itu ;9kzu,:n m ioid iaw t a '.. l The EPAct changes to the AEA made provision for the possibility that USEC might '
not initially be able to comply with the safety, safeghards,~ and security standards established l
by NRC. To address this contingency, the AEA permitted NRC to approve continued USEC operation of the GDPs if NRC approved DOE-prepared plans for bringing the GDPs into compliance with any unsatisfied provisions of NRC regulations. On November 26,19%,
NRC issued Certificates of Compliance certifying USEC's operation of the GDPs in
. '.;ev.aw cQu'.y 2 A listing of abbreviations and acronyms can be found in Appendix A. ,
1
for the remote possibility of a UF release while the UF is being heated and transferred. NRC has determined that autoclave design improvements are needed.
These improvements include the ability to test the containment valves, replacing all containment valves that are not fail-safe, and providing ad~=i=* operator alarms.
Although these design improvements will enhance the assurance of safety, the current autoclave design, in coqhmetion with Ow+==wy measures iW by NRC, is sufficient to provide adequate assurance of safe operation until the autoclave upgrades ,
are completed. n... ~ .: o
.t:u . .. ..
Criticality Safety - 10 CFR Part 76 requires that criticality prevention be included in the TSRs and be addressed via established procedures and/or equipment. Before March 3,1997, there were operations, at the GDPs, for which nuclear criticality safety evaluations (NCSEs) were incomplete or formal damanenratian was unavailable and double-ci- J--& +rj or other bases for acceptance had not been documented in an NCSE. Addiriannfly, there were adminiarrative aspects of the nuclear criticality safety program that had not been proceduralized or domunentad. Actions have been implementad at Paducah and Portsmouth to rectify these noncompliances.
a ::; ;r:q w w --
. . STATUS OF PADUCAH COMPIlANCE PLAN t w: -mw c . .m ..U
.c -
Of the 53 issues listed in the Paducah Compliance Plan, 34 have been completed (i.e.,
USEC has informed NRC that it has fulfilled all the individual actions described in a Compliance Plan issue). Of the 34 issues that have been completed,11 issues were completed Mre~ March 3,1997,'when NRC assumed regulatory responsibility, and kg.. 4r 30,
. . . , 1997, the close of the' reporting period. The aindfissues, along with a description of the X noncompliance and corrective actions, follow: (4
. ,c71.23 wb Mr W .~d.w; :.
Chemical Safety Mach ==ical I ; piiy Proy. - All elements of a merhanient integrity program, as defined in 29 CFR 1910.119, were not implemented for those chemicals described in SAR Section 5.16.13.3. This Compliance Plan item is a commitment to meet an Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) requi- t. USEC completed a machanical ~mtegrity program for maintenance- and ir-giion-process safety-management rqG. ... , as committed to in the Compliance Plan.
Administrative Controls on Overtime - The staffing allocations were not sufficient to meet training needs and to comply with NRC werking-hour guidelines. USEC supplementad staffing allocations to meet the working-hour guidelines, as committed to in the Compliance Plan.t m./:
- -Joq par;. m:: m 1 -
DOE Chemical Safety and Third-Party Use of Hazardous Chemicals - When USEC was created, DOE did not have established communication channels to provide USEC with informatian regarding the use of hazardous chemicals by DOE and third parties present at the site. To correct the situation, all initial process-hazards analyses were {
1 10 l
l DOE will assist NRC in perfonning the FOCI investigations and NRC will be the cogninnt security agency responsible for == Hag the final FOCI determimtion. All FOCI infonnation received from pioegsive bidders will be forwarded to both DOE and NRC, for a preliminary determi=tian of whether to allow such bidders access to information regardmg USEC operations. The time required to make the final FOCI determination for access to classified information will depend on the zannber and complexity of bidder information packages received from USEC.c The same FOCI information will then be used to make the statutory determinarian regarding iv.4 ve-.l.ip, control, or domination. The statutory determination must be made before certification of the USEC successor or fmal approval of 9.;i.;kulon:; wkcqm r n:n . ... 'o
- w . a n) .r w h.~: . E . : r The i== nance of the initial USEC certification was based, in part, on a finding of compliance with NRC standards to protect the common defense and security. Subsequent racertification of USEC, or certification of a USEC miccensar, will be based on the
=hmincian of changes'to the initial application and a similar review W.s. This review will include the SAR, the E.y.ic.I Securi'y Plan, the Security Plan for the Protection of Classified Matter, and the Fundamental Nuclear Material Control Plan. Additional considerations will include NRC's determinatinn on foreign ow-.idy, control or domination; USEC's implementarian of the C--p== Plans; acammistad regulatory experience; and NRC resident, regional, and "@iss inspection reports.
...; 3.n c.mv4 tgit noucanohi Litir. pre, bur. .
NRC's determinarian regarding the maintenance of a reliable and economical domestic source of enrichment acryices will be based on an i contractor's analysis of the privatized ev.yv .dcii's financial data. . The contractor will use standard investment banking financial ratios to estimase a credit rating for the privatized corporation.
. v.T .c6itsnigmsb zii pci. urn til sin.n.-
K . NRC 'israNS tandard S Review Plan to guide the recertification of the GDPs.
Included in the SRP will to a d r.i to ensure consistency in, and to formally document, the process that will be used to make the foreign ownership, control or domination, common-defense-and-security, anu . reliable and economical source-of-domestic enrichment-services determinations required ly the erntnae. Mog; . 1
^ : c' .in ict: c ?g:: . .:.* .;&r. . , ':
" ' .m .'. ara , we/x ' . e. . r. :. .
- ~ N ., f $ . . . .. ..
. .- . .u. ..
.$ N b5-A *[er&,
- !w be. ,1 Ni. r : ': m:" rn .-
- ' . ht:. w D.W : -
. . , .1/E1TW.. .. # '0
, KE F '. HI'l
' br:st +h .. ' * ~
.... . ;gg _ ,; - - - ( .
. ; #. ic. l10 3 u ..
. 20
~ .
CHAPTER 8 REGULATORY ACTIVITIES RULEMAKING h~Lt%ekl-Seeq31 Since initial certificarian of the GDPs, USEC has r==* NRC approval of several ,
amewhnents to its certi6 cates. When processing the amendment requests, as described in 10 CFR 76.45, NRC identified several deficiencies in the adminierrative process for === iia:
the certificates currently emhadiad in 10 CFR 76.45. Therefore, NRC initiated rula=*ing to revise 10 CFR Part 76 to correct certain deficiencies.
, Although 10 CFR Part 76 provides for amending the certificate, the process is not clearly defined and the recurring need for timely amendmenen was not adequately anticipated.
Only a very limited munber of amendmenen to the certificate was ==~*~'; in, m. more
, were received than anticipated. The current 10 CFR Part 76 does not provide a mechanism for making an amendment immadintely effective and it is ambiguous as to who can petition the Commission for review. The proposed revisions to 10 CFR Part 76 include providing a process for making an amendment immadintely effective and clarifying that any person whose interest may be affected is eligihla to file a petition for review of a certificate for amendment.
It is exp=~d hatt the rn'==i: g will be completed in 1998.
EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS EXERCISE On "a;=d+r 12,1997, a full-scale emergency preparedness exercise was conducend at the Portsmouth GDP. NRC Headquarters, NRC Region III and a site team participated in the exercise. Additionally, the response organizations of DOE in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, the State of Ohic, and the County of Pike participated. DOE and EPA were also represented at the site. The purpose of the exercise was to test the response of the various participants and the effectiveness of the information flow from the Portsmouth E%sy Operations Center.
It was concluded that the objectives of the exercise were accomplinhad and patamial improvements to the pivcess were identified. A similar exercise is scheduled at Paducah in the spring of 1998.
AVLS The USEC Privatization Act granted USEC the exclusive commercial right to deploy and use AVIJS patents, processes, and technical information owned or controlled by the Federal Government, upon completion of a royalty agreement with DOE. To the extent rq=*~i by USEC, and subject to the requirements of the AEA, the President shall transfer title to all of the pugdy owned by the United States or under its control that is useful for the development of AVLIS or alternative technologies for enriching uranium.
26 l
s AVLIS technology involves processing uranium metal alloy feedstock rather than UF6 gas, through the use oflasers and separator systems. Based on engineering studies, it is arn~*ad that an AVLIS facility will use only about 5 gis of the power used by the GDPs, require less capital investment than a new w=11tuge plant, and use 20 to 30 percent less uranium to produce co-per.ble amounts of EU. Cmi- iy, AVLIS develapment, demonstration, and design activities are being conducted at I.awrence Livermore National laboratory in Livermore, CA; General Electric Company in Wili iugtun, NC; and Cameco Coryciidion in Port Hope, Ontario, Canada. -> i ' ', , ~ . ..>:/. . rr. 7 -
.. r :. . . . - . , . w. . ..
In July 1994, USEC's Board of Directors authorized USEC management to begin taking steps necessary to cammercialize the AVLIS technology. In April 1995, USEC entered into an agreement that provided for the transfer of intellectual and physical yivym ry pertaining to AVLIS technalogy from DOE. USEC ara-** to subnut a license application to NRC in December 1998 to cebtain an NRC license to construct an AVLIS facility; ik,avsr, USEC proposed conducting pr*Ii i==ry meetings before that date to discuss technical issues. NRC will panicipate in these meetings to the extent that NRC resources are available. USEC cunently am to deploy an AVLIS plant in 2004. ~ . ' v-V r ., : . .; - -
r .:W=: : N ::t.v; & c., ..
The AVLIS project will present some unique and highly complex issues for NRC review. Since this is the first facility to employ laser technology, NRC currently has no documents to guide its review of such a facility. The form of EU will present some unique issues and problems in the areas of: nuclear criticality safety (novel fonns of EU consisting of vapor and metal); criticality computer code validation; accident analysis; safeguards; fire; explosions; and toxicity oflaser dyes. NRC cm - if has a project manager working part-time on the AVLIS activities. 'Ihus far, NRC activities concerning AVLIS have consisted of reviewir.g the AVLIS QA Plan as well as other prel:H=y meetings with USEC to lay the groundwork for USEC's AVIJS licensing applicarian. NRC resources provide for one full-time equivalent (FTE) until fiscal year (FY) 1999, to initiate preparation of the staffs guidance and to initiate review of the AVLIS prel'nda-y submittale from USEC. -
.r r .- :. :: ..
ms.4 & n u-(yn a7u u., n, 9,.sa.a Oks a ut %& N . Iomn a w ,a h noiof m Afa a a,a Ussc's L .4-2n<echs b s It & usdr of -rk OsEC. -b fidle ,Je ck eis ."be.
kma., gd be ma n- 4 A M ch)o . Ar ,esa, e p.\ t4, @ ' @c. inuut ' e NetA bl sw.le % 4 co,& mi-CA es 6 t o cht. P.dr i, 90,10 un.L 7t, ad,w. ud G6,a Di,}
co - % , h a c w J ai.3 s 4. w o s.%
fnkema Ac%).
27
CHAPTER 11. W x r a 'm -
- r. : . : . .x .w COMPLIANCE aWITH . ...m, a APPLICABLE LAW [
The GDPs at Paducah and Ponsmouth are either in full - - --- with NRC regulations, or a Compliance Plan exists, as required by NRC , for achieving full compliance. Progress has been made in completing Compliance issues since the initial certification, thus bringing the plants. closer to full compliance NRC regulations than they were at the time ofinitial certification in November 1996. Foj those instances where, the normal course of operation, violations of NRC regaladaan were identified, US prompt actions to reestablish compliance, and developed plans to prevent -~:urrence.
' f 4ucR Law 6. lov-tsy (* Usec bbM AdM 1
USEC is required to comply wittrall NRC regniadans applicable to the GDPs, most specifically 10 CFR Part 76. Other NRC regulations, or portions thereof, that apply include 10 CFR Part 19, " Notices, Instructions, and Reports to Workers: Taaa don and Investigations"; 10 CFR Part 20, " Standards for Protection Against Radiadan"; 10 CFR Part 21, " Reporting of Defects and Noncompliance"; 10 CFR Part 70, " Domestic I icensing of Special Nuclear Material"; 10 CFR Part 71, " Packaging and Tr.-yvii. dos of Radioactive Material"; 10 CFR Part 73, " Physical Protection of Plants and Materials"; 10 CFR Part 74, ,
" Material Control and Accounting of Special Nuclear Material"; and 10 CFR Part 95,
" Security Facility Approval and Safeguarding of National Security Information and Restricted Data."
As part of the initial certification, NRC performed a review to determine whether the operations at the GDPs comply with NRC regulations. 'Ibe results of this review were described in CERs, one each for Paducah and Po u- - A which were issued by NRC on 5 4r 13,1996. In those reports, NRC concluded that there is reasonable assurance that the plants will continne to be operated such that public health and safety will be adequately protected. NRC further concluded that the application fulfdis the requirements of 10 CFR Part 76. Although specific instances existed where compliance with NRC regulations was not ,
achieved,10 CFR 76.35(b) permits operation outside NRC regulations provided that DOE prepares a Compliance Plan, for achieving compliance with NRC regaladans, that includes, among other things, a justification for continued operation, in the interim period of non-compliance, with ad~'na'a safety, safeguards, and securiij. The Compliance Plans for Paducah and Portsmouth fulfill this requirement and were approved as part of the initial certification. Si'x:e initial certification in November 1996,19 Compliance Plan issues have been completed at Paducah and 15 at Portsmouth. Although not complete, work has progressed on all of the remaining issues in the Compliance Plans, thus bringing these plants closer to full compliance with NRC regulations than at the time of initial certifx:ation.
Between March 3,1997, and September 30,1997, there have been 35 violations of NRC regulations, TSRs, or Compliance Plan commitments at Paducah and 30 at Portsmouth.
33 i
I
, i f
Some of these violations were self-identified by USEC, hereas others were identified by NRC inwars performing routine inspections. The jority of the violations were in the areas of nuclear criticality safety, hiif, and p deficiencies - either inadequate I
pih or failing to follow procedureat. For tho instances where noncompliances with NRC regulations were antified, plant = =5= e= prompt corrective actions to brmg the plant back into compliance. In many cases, plak management also identified long-term actions to prevent recurrence. .
~p.
> Y h. '
S akeyeA tecu+:Vea.fm of 05Ec, e w hF.c 4 & & Wk. swi.ss%
w al b 6 ,4 m & . b isl a n ok d*ajes b It* IN 'ff'"O a ck.k< <evok gmeis , % req al\ shk. he ShK , %
FW 4 6 . 4.+sc E ch SW ceu.i.q 'rie,. -W Su-<i} d m a- 3.+-a4 hl PI
% 4 ,4 w W.< , ~ t,,e LA-h . .
l\ fda M
MuMk m %.f AuJ
~<s< < h:cwsa.<.Sh
,, ww\% M*s g$h ., om Muse A-wua.J
,a . a u a ic a a @ w u s k s u u r. a n p sa u ,*,. ,
s.k<n.4 s> < fo ye Os EC, Pa un her [W'u La a No lok t u .,". "l[ " _
. . :. s . . ' ' :s heA- y - .
Co M~ 15 E'l9j .'d tJtt (We & Elst cwil (b%
3 4 c ~, i &
- Ssi a b ue Lee&wOses, w cau,1 p+'s*g;Um4 pnaha m P a a M.
'ts .~." .,' ...
' kV"
, (URC is to CM511Hs4 ON [*k'MiJ
. .. 1 tad ' M f. M E (I b Affe $J ,qe no
~
M %s issad a ce est Q . s k n % , N 1 ,ll g 4
%%w rex w E dM unar.
. A M
- o g UNITED STATES
! n NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION .
g E WASHINGTON, D. c. 20506 g,.....j CHAIRMAN i yer.}- Sw al\ lei $ns -
The Honorable Dan Schaefer, Chairman Subcommittee on Energy and Power h7e (ef",'d- h NC N, N j y, f,,,,c,yg,oa/e/
Committee on Commerce United States House of Representatives m /t f e, ek ed of fw Washington, DC 20515 Md % hv*rewserk/ ho{e@*u
Dear Mr. Chairman:
/ e ,
The Energy Policy Act of 1992 modified the Atomic Ener y Act to require the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission to prepare an annual report to Co ress discussing the status of health, safety, and environmental conditions at the gaseous diffu 'on plants (GDPs) located near Paducah, Kentucky, and Portsmouth, Ohio. The NRC ass ed regulatory oversight of the GDPs from the U. S. Department of Energy on March 3,1997.
Attached is the first NRC Annual Report to Congress, covering from March 3,1997, to September 30,1997. In addition, the United States Enrichment Corporation (USEC) is pursuing development and licensing of Atomic Vapor Laser Isotope Separation (AVUS) technology as an altamate method to enrich uranium. NRC has had somt preliminary meetings with USEC to lay the groundwork for USEC's AVUS licensing application. A discussion of AVUS is included in the Annual Report since the availability of'AVUS technology has the potential to impact gaseo6s diffusion plant operations. ,
Sincerely, Shirley Ann Jackson
Enclosure:
Annual Report to Congress ,
on the Gaseous Diffusion Plants Located in Paducah, Kentucky and Portsmouth, Ohio cc: Representative Ralph Hal'l l
t