ML20236T647

Responds to to D Rathbun on Behalf of G Rivera of CSM Mobile,Ltd Which Provides Drug & Alcohol Testing & Screening Svcs.Forwards Necessary Forms for Rivera to Complete to Be Placed on NRC Bidders Mailing List

ML20236T647
Person / Time
Issue date:	05/24/1993
From:	Taylor J NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO)
To:	Moseleybraun SENATE
Shared Package
ML20236T625	List: IA-98-156, Partially Deleted Ltr Ack Which Transmitted Correspondence from Constituent Re Personnel Matter at Zion Nuclear Station ML20236T623 ML20236T639 ML20236T647 ML20236T655 ML20236T673 ML20236T675 ML20236T681 ML20236T685 ML20236T688 ML20236T697 ML20236T704 ML20236T715 ML20236T736 ML20236T741 ML20236T745 ML20236T748 ML20236T753 ML20236T754 ML20236T757 ML20236T759 ML20236T762 ML20236T764 ML20236T767 ML20236T769 ML20236T808 ML20236T822
References
FOIA-98-156 NUDOCS 9807280311
Download: ML20236T647 (12)

Text

__

i

[ [-.,

l o,,

UNITED STATES g

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g

a WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555

%,**..*f May 24, 1993 bhe Hanarable Carol Moseley-Braun United States Senate Washington, D.C.

20510-1303

Dear Senator Moseley-Braun:

I am responding to your May 3,1993, letter to Dennis K. Rathbun on behalf of your constituent, Mr. Greg Rivera of CSM Mobile, Ltd.

Your letter states that Mr. Rivera's firm, which provides drug and alcohol testing ano screening services, is seeking contracting opportunities with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).

While the NRC currently has an active contract for our drug testing program, requirements for future procurement in this area may arise.

In order that CSM Mobile, Ltd. may receive solicitations for such procurement, I have enclosed the necessary forms for Mr. Rivera to complete to be placed on our bidders mailing list. Additionally, I have forwarded CSM Mobile, Ltd.'s capability statement to the organization within NRC which would have a need for this firm's services.

Should Mr. Rivera wish to contact an Agency i

representative directly to discuss this subject, Mr. William Foster may be reached at (301) 492-7348.

Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance.

Sincerely, g

~

k f

imes M. Taylor xecutive Director for Operations

Enclosures:

As stated l

9807280311 980722 PDR FOIA KEMPER98-156 PDR s --

'ib o*/J o v > n

}

s.

UNITED STATES

[

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION c

r, wAsHmcTow, p. c. aoses k**...

l

Subject:

Contractor Solicitation Mailing List System The U.S Nuclear Regulator Commission (NRC) has a fully operational contractor solicitation mailing list system. This system allows potential offerors with l

the capabilities of performing services for, or providing supplies to, the NRC to receive, on a rotational basis. copies of solicitations within their areas of interest and expertise. This rotational procedure is in compliance with Federal Acquisition Regulation Section 14.205 which ensures that each qualified firm or person will have equal chance to compete for procurement in a given category. NRC's Division of Contracts and Property Management (DCPM) maintains this system, using Standard Form 129, " Solicitation Mailing List Application," which is completed by. potential contractors.

Use the enclosed categorization list to complete the Standard Form 129 and l

indicate in Block 10 no more than three alpha-numeric codes for goods or i

services for which you can supply or have expertise and desire consideration.

Please complete the form in its entirety with particular attention to Blocks 5 l

J and 11A which request type of ownership and size of business.information.

l If your concern is a disadvantaged business registered and approved for assistance by the Small Business Administration under Section 8(a) of the Small Business Act, please enter "SBA 8(a)" in Item 11.

Provide as supplemental information, the name and location of the SBA office primarily cognizant of your business development plan and which-is empowered to provide other forms of technical assistance.

If you represent a small business, you may also have information on your firm considered for referral to NRC offices by NRC's Office of Small and l

Disadvantaged Business Utilization and Civil Rights (OSDBU/CR). To accomplish this, please send the completed SF-129 plus a typed description (50 words or less) to identify your firm's capabilities for that office's automa'ted system to:

i, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attn: Harris E. Coleman, Program Manager, OSDBU Maryland National Bank Bldg., Room 7217

. Washington, DC 20555 You may also provide that office with a capability statement or typed background material, and the name of a contact person. The OSDBU/CR staff will forward the SF-129 to DCPM.

ET

-~

~--

- - ~ - - - - - - - - -

I All other completed SF-129's should be sent directly to:

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Division of Contracts and Property Management Policy Branch, Mail Stop: P-1118 Washington, DC 20555 No other materials should be sent to the above address.

If you have any questions regarding the solicitation mailing list system, please call (301) 492-8770.

Sincerely, l

t IG 4William Foster, Chief Policy Br:r.c'n Division of Contracts and l

Property Management-Office of Administration

Enclosures:

1. SF-129

2. Categorization List for Goods & Services l

l l'

l

1. TYPE OF APPLICATION

2. DATE FORM APPROVED SOLICITATION MAILING LIST APPLICATION INmAL REVISION 0009

" NOTE-Please Complete all lYms on this f$rm. Insert N/A in irms n:t applicable. See reverse for Instructions.

3. NAME AND ADDRE55 OF FEDERAL AGENCY TO WH4CH FOMM 45

4. NAME AND ADDRE55 OF APPLICANT (Include county and ZIP code)

SUEMsTTEO (include E!P code) t I

5. TYPE OF ORGANIZATION (Cheen one)

6. ADDRESS TO WHiCH SOLIC4TATIONS ARE TO BE MAILED (Jf diffemnt then item d)

D i~oiviou^'

O "o"-aaorit Oac^~iz^TiO" CORPORATION INCORPORATED O PARTNERSHIP UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF:

7. N A74ES OF OFFICERS. OWNERS. OR PARTNERS l

A. PRESIDENT e VYE PRE 5iOENT C. 5EC R ET AR Y D. T R EA5URE R X. OWNERS OR PARTNERS

8. AFFILI ATE 5 OF APPLICANT (Nemes. locatione sad netus of effilistaon. See definition on muerse.)

1

9. PERSONS AUTHORIZED TO SIGN OFFERS AND CONTRACTS IN YOUR NAME (Indicate if esent)

NAME OFFICI AL CAPACITY TELE. NO. (Include eres code) lo. IDENTIFY EQU4PMENT. 5UPPLIE5, AND/OR SERVICEl ON WHICH YOU DESIRE TO MAKE AN OFFER (see attached Federsi egency's suppiamental luting and instructions, if any) 11 A. 5IZE OF BU51NE55 (see defindffone on 115. AV R OF EMPLOYEE 5 11C. AVER AGE ANNUAL 5 ALES OR RECEIPTS mueree)

(In des) FOR POUR PRECED-FOR PRECEDING THREE FISCAL YEARS ING NOAR QUARTERS SMALL BUSINESS OTHER THAN 1

(if checked, complete SMALL l

f:"me Jia and JJC)

BUSINESS lit. TYPE OF OWNER 5 HIP (see definitions on

13. TYPE OF BU51NE55 (5ee definitions on muerse) rgeroegNot ePpaice64e for other shes emets MANUFACTURER REGULAR DEALER CONSTRUCTION SURPLUS OR PRODUCER (Type 1)

CONCERN DEALER WOMAN.

DISADVANTAGED OWNED SE RVICE REGULAR DEALER -

9 RESEARCH AND BU$lNESS BUSINESS ESTABLISHMENT (Type 2)

' DEVELOPMENT l< l. E UN5 NO. (IT eseReDie)

15. Now LONG IN FRL3ENT WW1' ire t.337

16. FLOOR SPACE tsouem firet)

17. NET WORTH A. M ANUF ACTU RING B. W A REHOUSE A.DATE

5. AMOUNT l

18. SECURITY CLEARANCE (if ePalise64e. cheen hasheet einerence eushordeed)

FOR TOPSECRET SECRET CONFIDENTI AL C. NAMES OF AGENCIES WHICH GRANTED SECURITY CLEARANCES (include detes)

A. KEY PCRSONNEL O. PLANT ONLY CERTIFICATION - l certify that information supplied herein (Jneluding oil posee etesehed) is correct and that neither the applicant nor any person (Or con-sern) in any connection with the applicant as a principel or officer, so for as is known. Is now debarred or otherwies declared ineligible by any agency of the Federal Govemment from making offers for furnishing meterials, supplies, or services to the Government or any esency thereof.

zo. BIGN ATU RE

21. DATE 56GNEO av.g E AND T ant oF PERaoM AUTMoRisto To BIGN (Type or

@ 7M1 153.aeed_ _ _

ggo.8m EANDARD FORM 129 (REV.10 43)

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION CATEGORIZATION LIST OF GOODS AND SERVICES Automatic Data Processing l

l l

A.01.00 ADP Equipment A.01.01 Hardware Lease / Rental A.01.02 Hardware Procurement

)

A.01.03 Hardware Maintenance j

A.01.04 Telecommunications Lease / Rental A.01.05 Telecommunications Procurement t

A.02.00 A.03.00 ADP Systems Development and Operation A.03.01 Documentation A.03.02 Programming A.03.03 Systems Maintenance A.03.04 Special Studies A.04.00 Computer Software A.05.00 Data Entry A.06.00 Data Transmission A.07.00 Key Punch and Verification A.08.00 Programming A.09.00 Maintenance of Proprietary Software Programs j

A.10.00 A.11.00 Systems Analysis A.12.00 ADP Application and System Development and and Maintenance - Comercial A.13.00

-A.14.00 Timesharing Services A.15.00 Word Processing Services A.16.00 ADPE Time Services - Comercial A.17.00 Purchase of Proprietary Software Programs A.18.00 Lease of Proprietary Software Programs A.19.00 ADP Support Services A.19.01 Data / Entry / Key Punch Support A.19.02 Proprietary Software A.19.03 Proprietary Systems A.19.04 Supply Services (Computer Paper, etc.)

Equipment and Equipment Services B.01.00 Installation B.02.00 Purchasing. Rental, Leasing and Maintenance B.02.01.01 ADP Equipment - Purchase B.02.01.02 ADP Equipment - Rental B.02.01.03 ADP Equipment - Maintenance

j I.

l I

Equipment and Equipment Services (Cont.)

B.02.02 Analytical Equipment I

B.02.03.01 Audio-Visual Equipment - Purchase B.02.03.02 Audio-Visual Equipment - Rental B.02.03.03 Audio-Visual Equipment - Maintenance i

B.02.04 Automobiles, Vans, Buses I

B.02.05 Computer Equipment l

Electronic and Communication Equipment B.02.06 B.02.07 Low and Mil Speed Modems B.02.08 Materials Testing Equipment B.02.09.01 Office Machines and General Equipment - Purchase Office Machines and General Equipment - Rental B.02.09.02 Office Machines and General Equipment - Maintenance B.02.09.03 B.02.10 B.02.11 Radiation Monitoring Equipment B.02.12 Radiographic Eauipment B.02.13 Recording Systems Dictating and Transcribing Equipment - Furchase B.02,14.01 Dictating and Transcribing Equipment - Rental B.02.14.02 Distribution and Packaging Equipment - Purchase f

B.02.15.01 i

Distribution and Packaging Equipment - Rental B.02.15.02 Distribution and Packaging Equipmerit - Maintenance B.02.15.03 B.02.16 Filing Equipment 1

B.02.17.01 Graphics Equipment - Pr. nase B.02.17.02 Graphics Equipment - Maintenance l

B.02.18.01 Microform Equipment - Purchase l

Microform Equipment - Rental

)

B.02.18.02 B.02.18.03 Microform Equipment - Maintenance l

l B.02.19.01 Photography Equipment - Purchase f

B.02.19.02 Photography Equipment - Rental B.02.19.03 r

Photography Equipment.e. Maintenance Printing and Reproduction Equipment - Purchase 8.02.20.01 Printing and Reproduction Equipment - Rental B.02.20.02 Printing and Reproduction. Equipment - Maintenance B.02.20.03 Rental of Travel Reservation System B.02.21 Security Equipment and Systems - Purchase

-B.02.22.01 Security Equipment and Systems-- Rental 8.02.22.02 Security Equipment and Systems - Maintenance B.02.22.03 i

4

Equipment and Equipment Services (Cont.)

{

B.02.23.01 Telecommunications Equipment - Purchase B.02.23.02 Telecommunications Equipment - Rental B.02.23.03 Telecommunications Equipment - Maintenance B.02.24 Warehouse Equipment B.02.25.01 Word Processing Equipment - Purchase B.02.25.02 Word Processing Equipment - Rental B.02.25.03 Word Processing Equipment - Maintenance B.03.00 l

B.04.00 Modification B.05.00 Monitoring B.06.00 Operation B.07.00 Repair and Rebuild j

8.08.00 Replacement B.09.00 Technical Representation Services lease / Rental Services C.01.00 Equipment; Computerized Teleticketing C.02.00 Facilities C.02.01 Conf erence Space C.02.02 Office Space C.03.00 Transportation Yehicles C.03.01 Automobiles C.03.02 Shuttle Buses C.03.03 Vans Management and Professional Services _

D.01.00 Consultant Services D.01.01 Coincident Hazards D.01.02 0.01.03 Hydrologic Engineering D.01.04 Radionuclides D.01 ^5 Water Chemistry 0.01.0.

Chemical Engineering D.01.07 Civil Engineering

~

Electrical / Electronic Engineering D.01.08 D.01.09 Environmental Impacts -

D.01.10 Epidemiology D.01.11 Geology D.01.12 Health Physics D.01.13 Materials / Metallurgy-D.01.14 Mechanical Engineering i

D.01.15 Meteorology i

D.01.16 Non-Radioactive Waste l

l D.01.17 Nuclear Engineering

J Management and Professional Services (Cont.)

1 D.01.18 Psychological Testing D.01.19 Radioactive Waste D.01.20 Radiobiology D.01.21 Safety Analysis l

D.01.22 Safeguards D.01.23 Seismology D.01.24 Statistics D.01.25 Structural Engineering D.01.26 Structural l

D.01.27 Transportation D.02.00 Cost Analysis D.02.01 Financial and Budgetary Analysis D.03.00 Information Systems Analysis D.04.00 Legal Services D.05.00 Management Analysis D.06.00 Operations Research D.07.00 Program Development D.08.00 Program Evaluation O.08.0?

Manpower and Personnel Analysis D.09.00 Program Management D.10.00 Project and Construction Management D.11.00 Psychiatric Services D.12.00 Specifications Development General Statistical Consulting and Analysis D.13.00 Nuclear Energy Research and Development E.01.00 Nuclear Power Plants E.02.00 Nuclear Facilities E.02.01 Costs E.02.02 Environment E.02.03 1.icensing E.02.04 Protection Security and Sabotage E.02.05 Site Suitability E.02.06 Emergency Planning Safeguards E.02.07 E.02.08 Safety E.03.00 Nuclear Fuel E.03.01 Fuel Conversion

-' ~

i-E.03.02 Fuel Containment l

E.03.03 Fuel Elements E.03.04 Fuel Reprocessing and Transportation E.03.05 Fuel Safety E.03.06 Fuel Spent E.03.07 Fuel Utilization E.03.08 Milling and Mining E.03.0g Fuel Enrichment E.03.10 Safeguards

c..

d Nuclear Energy Research and Development (Cont.)

Nuclear Material E.04.00 l

E.04.01 Environment E.04.02 Handling National Security E.04.03 Public Health and Safety E.04.04 E.04.05 Storage i

2.04.06 Theft and Sabotage l

E.04.07 Transportation l

E.04.08 Use Material Control and Accountability E.04.09 l

Measurements and Standards

)

E.04.10 Processing (Chemical Processing)

E.04.11 l

Safeguards E.04.12 Nuclear Reactors I

E.05.00 E.05.01 Construction E.05.02 Design E.05.03 Impact Analysis E.05.04 Operation Safety E.05.05 Concrete Structures and Pressure Yessels E.05.06 E.05.07 Environment Fast Reactors E.05.08 Instrumentation and Control

~

E 05.09 E.05.10 Safeguards Site Selection E.05.11 Nuclear Wastes E.06.00 E.06.01 Environment Nuclear Energy Centers E.06.02 E.06.03 Safeguards Site Suitability E.06.04 E.06.05 Waste Management Decommissioning and Decontamination E.06.06 E.06.07 Sabotage Nuclear Equipment Systems E.07.00 Construction E.07.01 E.07.02 Design Environment E.07.03 3

E.07.04 Operation E.07.05 Safety Quality, Control. Testing, Inspection Service f

Equipment and Materials Testing F.01.00 Fire Prevention and Qualification Testing F.02.00 Geological Examination.

F.03.00 Inspection Services F.04.00

Quality. Control. Testino, inspection Service (cont.)

l F.05.00 Non-Destructive Testing F.06.00 Performance Testing F.07.00 Puma Flywheel Testing F.08.00 Quality Control Services F.09.00 Radiation Assessment Seismic Qualifications of Equipment F.10.00 F.11.00 Stress Testing F.12.00 Destructive Testing 1

Special Studies and Analysis G.01.00 Accident Analysis Aerosol Particle Analysis l

G.02.00 G.03.00 Analysis and Forecasting G.04.00 G.05.00 Effluent Analysis G.06.00 Energy Analysis G.07.00.01 Environmental Safety G.07.00.02 Environmental Studies Environmental Behavior G.08.00 Feasibility Studies G.09.00 Floating Nuclear Plants G.10.00 Flood Protection Analysis G.11.00 G.12.00 Fuel Cycle Evaluation Gas Cooled Nuclear Power Plants G.13.00 Gas Liquid Interaction G.14.00 Geophysical and Geoscience Investigation G.15.00 Heat Transfer Analysis G.16.00 G.17.00 G.18.00 Impact Studies - Evaluation Fracture Mechanics Analysis - Elastic, G.19.00 Elastic-Plastic and Plastic Including Technological Advancements in each Area Integrated Safeguards, Information Systems G.20.00 Analysis Licensing and Regulatory Criteria G.21.00 G.22.00 G.23.00 G.24.00

- Non-Destructive Examinations

,A G.25.00 Nuclear Industrial Impact Studies G.26.00 Nuclear Power Studies G.27.00 G.28.00 Off-shore Power Systems G.29.00 Plutonium Facilities G 30.00 Probability Analysis t

I G.31.00 Radiation Studies G.32.00 Radiation Effects on Materials G.33.00 l

Repression and Response Surface Methodology G.34.00 Re riability Studies G.35.00 G.36.00 Seismic Input and Soil Structure 6.37.00

Special Studies and Analysis (Cont.)

Site Suitability Analysis G.38.00 Soil Behavior G.39.00 G.40.00 G.41.00 Stability Analysis Tornado Winds Fields G.42.00 Antitrust and Indemnity l

G.43.00 G.44.00 ASME Codes G.45.00 Biological Effects of Plutonium l

G.46.00 Cost Benefit Containment Vessels G.47.00 Corrosion Problems G.48.00 G.49.00 Decision Analysis G.50.00 Facility Safeguards Fluid Mechanics and Hydrolics G.51.00 Fracture Mechanics G.52.00 Ground Water Modeling Systems G.53.00 Health Physics G.54.00 Health Effects of Iodizing Radiation G.55.00 G.56.00 Ion Exchange Systems Light Water Cooled Nuclear Power Plants G.57.00 Liquid Metal Fast Breeder Reactor G.58.00 Material Safeguard

)

G.59.00 Metallurgical Analysis i

G.60.00 G.61.00 Ocean Engineering

~

G.62.00 Piping Analysis Reactor Material - Radiation Effects. Fracture G.63.00 Toughness and Dosimetory G.64.00 Reactor Sabotage G.65.00 Spray Systems Stress Analysis of Structures and Components G.66.00 Structural Analysis G.67.00 Threat Analysis G.68.00 G.69.00 Utility Management Value-Impact (Cost Benefit Analysis G.70.00 Vibration Analysis - Dynamic Analysis of G.71.00 Components and Systems Support Services Audio-visual Services.

N.01.00 H.01.01 Graphic Arts

'. j Photographic Reproduction H.01.02 Procedure Microfiche H.01.03 Video Production H.01.04 H.01.04.01 Video Tape Reproduction Video Tapes and Slides H.01.04.02 Clerical Services H.02.00 H.02.01 H.02.02 Typing H.02.03 Abstracting H.02.04 Cataloguing Services i

l H.02.05 Editing H.02.06 Indexing H.02.07 Text Revision

4 Support Services (Cont.)

H.03.00 H.04.00 Document Reproduction Services H.05.00 Office Design Services H.06.00 Printing and Reproduction Services H.06.01 Electrostatic Copying c

l H.06.02 Microfilm Conversion H.06.03 Microfilm Production H.06.04 Duplication H.06.05 Technical / Engineering Support H.07.00 Supplies and Materials H.08.00 Courier Delivery Services l

l H.09.00 Contract Moving Services H.10.00 Communications H.11.00 Custodial Services H.12.00 Distribution Services H.13.00 Contracted Microform Production l

H.14.00 Clipping Services H.15.00 Contracted Copying H.16.00 Contracted Printing H.'17.00 General Office Supplies and Materials H.18.00 GPO Print Orders H.19.00 Graphics Orders H.20.00 Graphics Blanket Orders.

H.21.00 Photography Composition H.22.00 Purchase and Microforms H.23.00 Subscription Services H.24.00 Translations Training Services I.01.00 Conferences Seminars, Workshops 1

1.02.00 Course Development / Instruction f

1.03.00 Fire Prevention Training I.04.00 Inspection and Enforcement Training

(

I.05.00 Security Training I.06.00 Skill Development Training 1.06.01 Communication 1.06.02 Interpersonal Relations I.06.03 Reading I.06.04 Shorthand 1.06.05 Time Management I.06.06 Writing I.07.00 Staff Development Training I.07.01 Career Counseling I.07.02 Decision Analysis j

I.07.03 Management i

I.07.04 Personnel Policies I

%m h6c.ucs 0.

f3y

m. <-

cutu y,

a UNITED STATES E

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2

WASHINGTON. D.C. 205854001 August 6, 1993

.('TheMonorableCarolMoseley-Braun United States Senator l

230 S. Dearborn Boulevard Suite 3996 Chicago, Illinois 60604

Dear Senator Moseley-Braun:

. I am responding to your July 6,1993, letter, which enclosed a letter from one of your constituents, Mr. Carl Shier. Mr. Shier expressed concern about the i

plans of Consumers Power Company to store nuclear spent fuel in casks at the J

Palisades Nuclear Plant in Michigan.

j i

On April 7,1993, the Office of the Federal Register published a Notice of Final Rule (58 FR 17948), which approved the VSC-24 cask, a cylindrical l

concrete cask storage system for spent fuel designed by the Pacific Sierra i

Nuclear Associates (PSNA). A copy of the Federal Reaister notice, including an analysis of the public coments, appears in Enclosure 1.

The Final Rule,

-effective May 7,-1993, allows any power reactor licensee to use the VSC-24 system, as well as four previously approved cask systems, to store spent nuclear reactor fuel onsite under a general license, provided the licensee can meet the conditions of the general license. Consumers Power Company is the first of three utilities that plan to use this cask system. -The rulemaking for this VSC-24 included a 9-month public comment period, during which we considered letters from about 200 persons and organizations, as well as a public meeting with interested citizens and governmental officials. The analysis of public comments in the Federal Reaister notice in Enclosure 1 j

' evidences the Commission's extensive consideration of, and constitutes the Commission's' response to, the issues raised in those comments and public meeting.

The rulemaking on the VSC-24 cask followed an application by the VSC-24 cask vendor for NRC approval of the cask, specifically, the vendor, PSNA, first submitted a Topical Report (TR) for the " Ventilated Storage Cask Systems" (VSC-24) on February 24, 1989.. The NRC accepted the cask design as described in the TR and issued a Safety Evaluation Report (SER) on March 29, 1991. On November 4,1992, PSNA submitted a " Safety Analysis Report For the Ventilated Storage Cask Systems," (SAR) in support of its application for a certificate of compliance to be used under a general license.

Based on the review of the SAR,:NRC issued an SER dated May 6, 1992, and a " Proposed Certificate of

Compliance for.the Ventilated Storage cask (VSC-24) For Irradiated Fuel" dated

.May 5, 1992.

bh r

mm M Suva

l l

row

. O The Honorable Carol Moseley-Braun 2

NRC issued a final Certificate of Compliance after the rulemaking, on May 3, 1993. We are providing a copy of the Certificate of Compliance (see Enclosure

2) and the Safety Evaluation Report for the VSC-24 system (see Enclosure 3).

t In dealing with these issues, we have carefully considered the views of Members of Congress, State public officials, and a number of private citizens and groups who have expressed concerns about this storage system. We reflect our consideration of these views in the enclosures to this letter. We will continue to keep the public health and safety of the citizens of Illinois and all other states our paramount concern in these activities.

I trust the enclosed material will help to resolve your constituent's concerns.

Sincerely,

/

1-mes M. Ta or xecutive Director for Operations

Enclosures:

1.

58 FR 17948 2.

Certificate of Compliance 3.

Safety Evaluation Report l

I g

y reo ug%

UNITED STATES MMW' d V

.f j. Id NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON. D.C. 20EEE 0001 December 30, 1993 (TheHonorableCarolMoseley-Braun l

United States Senator 230 S. Dearborn Boulevard l

Suite 3900 l

Chicago, IL 60604

Dear Senator Moseley-Braun:

I am responding to your letter of December 3,1993, with regard to correspondence from your constituent, Alan J. Fredian, dated September 16, 1993. Dr. Fredian expressed several concerns about storing spent fuel in the 1

VSC-24 casks at the Palisades nuclear plant.

Section 218(a) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (NWPA) includes the following directive:

"The Secretary (of DOE) shall establish a demonstration program in cooperation with the private sector, for the dry storage of spent j

nuclear fuel at civilian nuclear power reactor sites, with the objective of 1

establishing one or more technologies that the (Nuclear Regulatory] Commission' may, by rule, approve for use at'the sites of civilian nuclear power reactors.~

without, to the maximum extent practicable, the need for additional site-specific approvals by the Commission.". Section 133 of the NWPA states, in part, that "...the Commission shall, by rule, establish procedures for the licensing of any technology approved by the Commission under Section 218(a) for use at the site of any civilian nuclear reactor."

Therefore, the Commission approved dry storage of spent nuclear fuel in publishing a final rule on July 18, 1990 (55 FR 29181), that established a new Subpart K within 10 CFR Part 72 entitled, " General License for Storage of Spent Fuel at Power Reactor Sites," and a new Subpart L within 10 CFR Part 72 entitled, " Approval of Spent Fuel Storage Casks."

On April 7,1993, the Office of the Federal Register published a Notice of Final Rule (58 FR 17948),'which approved the VSC-24 cask, a cylindrical concrete cask storage system for spent fuel designed by the Pacific Sierra Ruclear Associates (PSNA). A copy of the Federa Register notice, including an analysis of the public' comments, appears in Enclosure 1.

The Final Rule, which becaereffective May 7,1993,' allows any power reactor licensee to use the VSC-24 system, as wel.1 as four previously approved cask systems, to store spent nuclear reactor fuel onsite under a general license, provided the licensee can meet the conditions of the general license. Consumers Power Company is the first of three utilities that plan to use this cask system.

The rulemaking for_ this VSC-24 included a 9-month public comment period, L

during which we considered letters from about 200 persons and organizations, as well ~as a'public meeting with interested citizens and governmental officials. The analysis of public comments in the Federal Reuister notice in evidences the Cossaission's extensive consideration of, and constitutes the Commission's response to, the issues raised in those comments and public meeting. The comments included issues essentially identical to Mwn A.N1

(

na

.s

?

The Honorable Carol Moseley-Braun 2

those raised by your constituent. The Commission's responses to the issues raised by your constituent are contained in the " Background" and responses to comments. With respect to Dr. Fredian's assertion of the need for a full EIS, please see our answer to comment 61.

The rulemaking on the VSC-24 cask followed an application by the VSC-24 ca:ik vendor for U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission approval of the cask.

Specifically, the vendor, PSNA, first submitted a Topical Report (TR) for the " Ventilated Storage Cask Systems" (VSC-24) on February 24, 1989.

NRC accepted the cask design as described in the TR and issued a Safety Evaluation Report (SER) on March 29, 1991. On November 4, 1991 PSNA submitted a "Safity Analysis Report for the Ventilated Storage Cask Systems," (SAR) in support of its application for a certificate of compliance to be used under a general license.

Based on the review of the SAR, NRC issued an SER dated May 6,1952, and a " Proposed Certificate of Compliance for the Ventilated Storage Cask (VSC-24) for Irradiated Fuel" dated May 5, 1992.

NRC issued a final Certificate of Compliance after the rulemaking, on May 3, 1993. We are providing a copy of the Certificate of Compliance (see

'- ) and the SER for the VSC-24 system (see Enclosure 3).

After the NRC rulemaking generically approved the VSC-24 for use, the Michigan Attorney General, together with the Lake Michigan Federation and three nearby cottage owners, petitioned the U.S. District Court in Grand Rapids to stay the rule and stop use of the cask. The court denied the petitioners' request, as did the U.S. Court of Appeals in Cincinnati.

Petitioners subsequently requested the Court of Appeals to invalidate the NRC rulemaking approving the cask. That request is pending, briefs were filed in the litigation this fall, and a decision could be rendered early next year.

In dealing with these issues, we have carefully considered the views of Members of Congress, the Michigan Attorney General, and a number of private citizens and groups expressing concern about this storage system.

We reflect our consideration of these views in the enclosures to this letter. We will

. continue to keep the public health and safety of the citizens of Illinois and all other states our paramount concern in these activities.

I trust that this reply and the enclosed material will help to respond to your constituent's concerns.

k Sincerely,

,/

_g.4 1 mesM.Tg/ lor xecutive Director for Operations

Enclosures:

1.

58 FR 17948 2.

Certificate of Compliance 3.

Safety Evaluation Report

~

! vb, i

UNITED STATES l

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION j

(

WASHINGTON, D.C. 10666-0001 January 31, 1994 i

The Honorable Carol Moseley-Braun l

n ted States Senate Washington, DC 20510-1303

Dear Senator Moseley-Braun:

l I am responding to your letter dated December 17, 1993, forwarding the concerns of Mr. Walter Juds regarding the safety of commercial nuclear power plants in the United States.

I would like Mr. Juds to be assured that the national debates on NAFTA, universal health care, and other issues have not distracted the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) in any way from its focus on the safe operation 'of nuclear facilities. As an independent agency of the Federal Government, the NRC exercises its responsibilities with a minimum of interference from other policy issues or political influences.

The NRC continues to maintain close oversight of the operation of nuclear power plants.

Regional offices throughout the country, including one in Glen Ellyn, Illinois, conduct a vigorous inspection program, and assign resident inspectors to each plant site. Any deviation from NRC regulations or from sound safety practice is evaluated and, in some cases, enforcement actions such as civil penalties ensue.

Operational problems are thoroughly evaluated to identify root causes and remedy them.

The NRC also closely monitors the nuclear industry to identify trends in operational experience to determine whether new issues are emerging which raise the need for new regulations or requirements.

'The safety record of each plant is evaluated on a regular basis in accordance with the agency's systematic assessment of licensee performance process.

In some cases, a plant is identified as needing, and receives, increased regulatory attention until performance improves.. In extreme cases, plants have been ordered to temporarily cease operation until problems are remedied.

In no case'i nuclear plant in the United States allowed to operate, unless it meets t lations of the NRC and operates in conformance with high J

]

safety sta y

Mr. Juds' 1

' raises a specific concern regarding the possibility of a Chernoby1 type of accident in the United States. The NRC has taken major i

steps to minimite the circumstances that might lead to such an accident.

{

Although the Three Mile Island (TMI) accident in 1979 damaged the reactor core, unlike the Chernobyl accident, the TMI accident did not result in a significant release of radiation to the public.

h I

s

, e s.

Senator Moseley-Braun As a result of TMI, the NRC placed numerous additional requirements on the design and operation of nuclear plants. One of the most significant actions taken by the NRC is the requirement for each plant to conduct a comprehensive design review, called an individual plant examination (IPE), to identify and remedy vulnerabilities to severe accidents. These improvements reduce the likelihood of a severe accident and improve the capability of the plants to cope with one if it were to happen. Moreover, major improvements have been made in our ability to evacuate the public or take other protective smasures as necessary.

The NRC is dedicated to providing the level of oversight necessary to the safe operation of nuclear power plants.

Sincerely,

-[

J us M. Ttylor.

ecutive Director for Operations i

l

=d n

u.

UNITED STATES 5

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION k.....

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20666-0001 July 19, 1994 l

l Th rable Carol Moseley-Braun

~

nited States Senator 230 South Dearborn Street Chicago, Illinois 60604

Dear Senator Moseley-Braun:

l l

I am responding to your letter of June 27, 1994, which forwarded an inquiry raised by one of your constituents regarding the Commonwealth Edison Company's (Comed, the licensee) proposal to modify its security plans for the Dresden, LaSalle, and Zion nuclear power plants.

Your previous letters of May 13 and May 27, 1994, also forwarded similar concerns'that were raised by your constituents.

In my letter of June 17, 1994, I conveyed the position of the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) on the effectiveness of the current Comed security plan and the status of other proposed changes.

As I stated in my June 17, 1994 letter, the NRC continues to monitor the performance of the licensee and guard force throughout the Comed system. We have discussed the. impact of these changes with licensee management and some members of the guard force. To date, there has been no noted decline in performance affecting the protection of the public related to the changes that have been implemented. The NRC will continue to monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of any future changes to Comed's security plan as they are implemented.

I trust that this information is responsive to your request.

Sincerely,

-/

K<

mes

.T or xecutive rector for Operations h

f'v I

,;8.p.3~

UNITED STATES n

,1 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

'o,,

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20M5 August 4, 1994 cHA n AN (Tha Monorable Carol Mosely-Braun United States Senate Washington, D.C.

20510 i

Dear Senator Mosely-Braun:

I as responding to your letter of June 21, 1994, regarding the FY 1994 annual fees proposed for Allied-Signal, Inc., which owns and operates a uranium hexafluoride facility in Metropolis, Illinois.

The Commission understands your concern about the potential adverse impact of these fees.

However, the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 (OBRA-90), as amended, requires the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for fiscal years 1991 through 1998 to recover approximately 100 percent of its budget authority, less the amount appropriated from the Nuclear Waste Fund, by assessing fees to NRC applicants and licensees.

Each year, we must develop fees that will permit NRC to meet this requirement.

We make constant efforts to ensure that the budget that must be recovered is only what is needed to provide adequate protecti m of the public health and safety.

l On May 10, 1994, the Commission published for public comment a proposed rule indicating the amounts of the licensing, inspection, and annual fees necessary to recover approximately 100 percent of the NRC FY 1994 budget authority.

After evaluating all comments, including those from Allied-Signal, we i

published the final rule establishing fees for FY 1994 on July i

20, 1994.

Although the Commission concluded that the fees for i

the various classes of fuel facilities are appropriate, it noted l

that some of the issues raised by Allied-Signal indicated an

" unusual situation" warranting further consideration.

Therefore, i

we are carefully considering Allied-Signal's comments regarding l

NRC's allocation of costs to them as a request for an exemption from payment of the full fee under 10 CFR 171.11(d).

The Commission expects to issue a decision on this exemption request l

e in the near future and will forward a copy to you when it is available.

If I can be of further assistance, please let me know.

l Sincerely, l

Kenneth C.

Rogers Acting Chairman k

wwu:

n e.

w.

3 O

mited ji5tates Etnatt M/ASHINGTON, DC 20510 June 21, 1994 Dr. Ivan Selin Chairman Nuclear Regulatory Commission one White Flint North Building j

11555 Rorsville Pike l

Rockville, Maryland 20852

Dear Dr. Selin:

We are writing to express our concerns on proposed regulations published by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the Federal Registcr May 10, 1994.

These proposed regulations revise the NRC's annual licensing, inspection and annual fees charged to its applicants and licensees.

We believe these fees may have an an adverse impact on an Illinois firm.

AlliedSignal owns and operates a uranium hexafloride conversion facility in Metropolis, Illinois, and has filed comments on the proposed regulations.

This firm is concerned that the regulations, if made final, will have an adverse effect on the Metropolis plant, and on the American uranium hexafloride business in general.

The fee charged to AlliedSignal in FY 1993 was $680,220.

The proposed regulations would impose a new annual fee on AlliedSignal of $1,169,770 -- nearly a 72 percent increase from i

the previous year.

It is our understanding that such an increase would raise the cost of conversion services by six cents per pound and require AlliedSignal's charge to its customers to be raised by the same amount just to recoup the cost of the annual fee.

Both the Department of Energy and the NRC have recognized that the Metropolis plant is important to our nation; the plant is. one of only five UF. conversion facilities in the world, and.

It the sole remaining conversion facility in the United states.

is our understanding that winning bids on conversion services can' be decided by as little as one cent per pound of UF..

Last year, AlliedSignal converted 19,000,000 pounds of UF..

It would l

appear, therefore, that any price increase required to cover the cost of an increased annual fee -- a fee that converters in Canada and Europe do not have to pay -- substantially impairs he US conversion industry's competitive position and, possibly, the continued operation of the Metropolis facility.

l

e, '

y t

Dr. Ivan Selin June 16, 1994 Page Two AlliedSignal believes that the proposed fee does not reflect the fact that the Metropolis plant has been well run and does not require a great deal of Commission attention.

AlliedSignal also believes its fees should be based upon the uranium recovery classification, rather.than the fuel facility classification, since its plant. deals with uranium concentrates manufactured by millers, rather than the more dangerous special nuclear material that requires more vigilant oversight by the Commission.

Finally, we are greatly concerned about any negative impact this decision may have upon workers in Metropolis.

The Metropolis plant employs 380 workers, making it the second largest employer in its region of southern Illinois.

One hundred percent of the maintenance contractors used at the plant are Illinois companies.

Given that southern Illinois is a rural, lower-income area suffering from severe unemployment, any adverse impact upon this plant created by this regulation could lead to unacceptable consequences to the regional economy.

We hope you will give AlliedSignal's comments careful consideration under the commission's regulation and guidelines.

Specifically, we urge you to exercise the Commission's discretion not to impose such an unreasonable annual fee on this facility for reasons of equity, economic stability, and fairness required by the statute under which the fee is imposed.

Sincerely, hR

^=-h A

Carol Moseley-aun Paul Simon United States anator United States Senator I

Glenn Poshard Member of Congress

l l

UNITED STATES 8

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION I

o U

f wassmoron. o. c. rosss 1

October 31, 1994 CHAIRMAN The Honorable Carol Moseley-Braun n

ed States Senate Washington, D.C.

20510 l

Dear Senator Moseley-Braun:

On June 21, 1994, you wrote to me regarding the FY 1994 annual fee for Allied-Signal, Inc. (Allied), which owns and operates a l

uranium hexafluoride facility in Metropolis, Illinois.

Our response, dated August 4, 1994, noted that the issues raised by l

Allied relative to the allocation of costs to its license were 4

being treated as an exemption request under 10 CFR 171.11(d).

Based on a careful evaluation of the Allied exemption request, the Commission, on October 14, 1994, granted a partial exemption I

from the FY 1994 annual fee in the amount of $434,000.

As a result, the annual fee for the Allied license was reduced 37

)

percent, from $1,169,770 to $735,770.

The amount of the partial exemption was based on a reexamination of the regulatory effort i

associated with the many aspects of fuel facility operations.

Based on that analysis, the NRC determined that its safety regulatory effort is lower for Allied because Allied's licensed operations do not involve all of the aspects of power reactor fuel fabrication.

As indicated in the FY 1994 final fee rule published July 20, 1994, the NRC plans to review the current classification of' fuel fabrication licenses and to include the result of this reevaluation in the FY 1995 proposed rule.

The FY 1995 proposed rule will be published for notice and comment in the spring of 1995.

Sincerely,

/b&

Ivan Selin k,f l

i Jgg-

• '. " ' p en: g \\

UNITED STATES N

[

gg

/

7 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION I*

WASHINoToN, D.C. 30006 0001 January 27, 1995

(

The onorable Carol Moseley-Braun n ted States Senator 230 South Dearborn Street Chicago, Illinois 60604

[

Dear Senator Moseley-Braun:

This is a followup to my letter to you dated June 17, 1994, which was in response to your letters dated May 13 and May 27, 1994.

In these letters you forwarded concerns raised by your constituents regarding the Commonwealth Edison Company's (Comed) proposal to modify security plans for its nuclear facilities.

In the past, Comed routinely required all members of the security force to be armed. However, in late 1993, Comed decided to reduce the number of armed guards, but to retain a sufficient number of armed members to meet its regulatory commitments.

The correspondence enclosed with your May 27, 1994 letter expressed the concern that the' reduction in the number of armed gsards at the LaSalle,

.Dresden, and Zion facilities would have an adverse impact on plant physical protection and safety. An NRC physical security inspection conducted on July 18-22, 1994, at the LaSalle facility included a review of this concern.

The results of the inspection indicated that the number of armed responders on shift met the NRC approved security plan.

In October and November 1994, the NRC staff visited LaSalle to review other security force armed response related concerns and, while there, determined that Comed has continued to meet its armed response. commitments to the NRC. We did find that there were labor / management related issues which have had a negative effect on morale.

Nevertheless, during the inspection, NRC staff did not observe a decline in security force performance associated with the security plan modifications.

The security inspections discussed above were initially conducted only at LaSalle because it was the only facility of the three mentioned that had implemented the new security plan. Dresden implemented the new security plan on December 9,1994, and Zion is currently in the process of implementing the i

new plan. -The NRC performs periodic security inspections at LaSalle, Dresden, i

and Zion, just as it does at all nuclear power plant sites, and will monitor the performance of the security forces at these Comed sites to ensure that.the security plan changes do not result in diminished performance.

An issue rats,ed in your letter dated May 13, 1994, was a concern that certain retaliatory measures were taken against various guard force personnel for raising guard force staff reductions as a safety issue. Upon review of the l

issues raised, it appears that the fundamental issue in these allegations is a labor union / management dispute. We have contacted the National Labor 1

Senator Moseley-Braun l Relations Board (NLRB) and have been advised that they are investigating several of the complaints made by your constituents against both Comed and

(

Burns Security. Should you or your constituents have any questions regarding the status of these complaints, I recommend that you contact the NLRB directly. Mr. Glenn A. Zipp, from the Peoria, Illinois, office is the point of contact and can be contacted at (309) 671-7080.

In the meantime, the NRC will continue to monitor guard performance during future security inspections, to assure that the security program is meeting its intended function, end will l

review the disposition of this matter by the NLRB to determine whether any further action by the NRC is warranted.

Sincerely, l

.J g

3 mes M. T or xecutive trector i

for Operations cc:

T. H. Brem, Political Director General Service Employees Union G. A. Zipp, NLRB l

• ' couuirrit5 l

• CAROL MOsELEY-BRAUN BAMWGMOUSWG A.

l

== '

U' BAN AFF AIMS A

l, Jhtitch,$tates fecitatc

~

sPECIAL AGWG WASHINGTON. oC 20510-1303 November 26,1996 Dr. Shirley Ann Jackson Chairman Nuc. lear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555-0001

Dear Dr. Jackson:

It has been brought to my attention that Louisiana Energy Service (LES) plans to construct and operate a uranium enrichment facility between the two rural African-American communities of Forest Grove and Center Springs, Louisiana.

According to the information provided to my office, these two communities were selected for the proposed facility without their prior knowledge or consent. It is also my understanding that the proposed facility will produce over 100,000 tons of toxic radioactive waste that will be stored on site and near these two communities for a significant period of time.

As you know, poor minority communities bear a disproportionate burden of pollution problems throughout the United States. As a longtime advocate of environmental justice, I am concerned that the environmental justice implications of this particular project may not been adequately addressed.

I am interested, therefore, in learning what steps the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has taken to determine whether the Claiborne Enrichment Center will have a disproportionate adverse impact on minority and economically disadvantaged populations in this region of Louisiana.

Thank you in advance for your attention to this request.

Sincerely, Carol Moseley-Bra United States Sendor CMB:hta

\\

c c

tUhMnTl2

--