ML20247R814
| ML20247R814 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 09/27/1989 |
| From: | Loysen P NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | Rouse L NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| References | |
| REF-PROJ-M-45 NUDOCS 8910020079 | |
| Download: ML20247R814 (8) | |
Text
-
.M h
'b UNITED STATES
~8 gE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION h
WASHINGTON. D. C. 20555 n
,c SEP t 71933 i
Project No.'M-45 MEMORANDUM FOR:
Leland C. Rouse, Chief Fuel Cycle Safety Branch Division of Industrial and Medical Nuclear Safety, NMS$
FROM:
-Peter Loysen, Licensing Project Manager Advanced Fuel and Special Facilities Section m
Fuel Cycle Safety Branch Division of Industrial and Medical Nuclear Safety, NMSS
SUBJECT:
SUMMARY
OF MEETING WITH LOUISIANA ENERGY SERVICES The NRC staff met with representatives of Louisiana Energy Services (LES) on September 14, 1989, to meet the newly appointed LES President, Dr. W. Howard Arnold, and to begin detailed discussions on licensing matters.
The meeting was divided into two parts--one on antitrust information and another on topics which LES wished to discuss, including ANPR issues, one-step licensing, quality assurance, emergency planning, operator licensing, physical security, material control and accounting, and IAEA involvement.
In addition, the staff wanted to raise the issues of foreign ownership, control or domination, incremental start-up, licensing requirements for centrifuge machine fabrication and site selection.
Lists of attendees for both parts of the meeting are enclosed.
Pursuant to 10 CFR Part 50.33a, any person who applies for a construction permit for a uranium enrichment plant must submit information requested by the Attorney General.of the United States for antitrust review.
Since such a review is a lengthy process, the staff advised LES to submit the information as far in advance of the actual application as possible.
Of course, LES cannot submit information until the staff, in conjunction with the Department of Justice, prepares its request.
LES was advised that the request will be patterned after that developed in the recent A1ChemIE case, with which LES is familiar.
The staff stated that it hopes to have the request prepared by the end of October, 1989.
Dr. Arnold, who is retiring from the Westinghouse Corporation and moving to l
the Washington, D.C. area in early October, introduced himself as the President of Louisiana Energy Services, which is still operating under a memorandum of understanding among the future partners.
A formal partnership agreement is expected to be consummated in the first quarter of 1990.
8910020079 890927 PDR PROJ t
M-45 PDC 1
l o
SEP 2 71333 Leland C. Rouse 2
1 l
The issue of foreign ownership, control or domination has been raised in previous meetings between Urenco, Inc. and the staff, but no action had been proposed or taken to resolve it.
Since 10 CFR Part 50.38 makes ineligible any entity which is owned, controlled or dominated by an alien, a foreign corporation, or a foreign government from applying for a license, it would seem reasonable to determine that LES is an eligible applicant before the task of preparation of an application begins.
Toward that end, LES agreed to review their deliberations and to submit information that will permit NRC to make a determination of eligibility.
No time was identified for the submittal, but it could be expected after the LES partnership is formed.
In discussing several of the items noted in the 1987 Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) for uranium enrichment regulatio,1, LES suggested that NRC publicize approval of any currently open ANPR items, so that NRC's positions would not be subject to dispute in a proceeding on the application.
Although the rulemaking will not proceed at this time, the Commission made it clear in the ANPR that the positions taken therein would be used in any licensing review of a uranium enrichment plant.
While clarification and additional guidance on many of the ANPR issues will be prepared and published by the staff, no attempt will be made to give them the status of regulation.
More likely forms would be Regulatory Guides, NUREG reports, and staff technical positions.
In the ANPR, the staff proposed, for siting and design purposes, maximum intakes of 9 to 40 milligrams of uranium and exposures, for short periods, of 26 milligrams per cubic meter of hydrogen fluoride.
We advised LES that a report covering this topic is being prepared and should be published by the end of 1989.
The values in the report are expected to be 40 milligrams of uranium and 480 milligram-minutes per cubic meter (equivalent to 16 milligrams per cubic meter for 30 minutes, which is the NIOSH IDLH limit).
LES expressed concern over the staff's intention to use a mean return period of 10,000 years for the frequency of occurrence for a tornado of a given intensity.
According to LES, this might mean a design wind speed over 300 miles per hour in the northern Louisiana area.
Although the staff believes that such a mean return period is appropriate and consistent with other natural phenomena considerations, we advised LES that they may propose other mean return periods and design wind speeds so long as they can be justified.
The ANPR noted that 10 CFR Part 50.109, Backfitting, would not apply to uranium enrichment plants.
LES believes that backfitting should apply.
Regardless, the issue is irrelevant until the time a plant would be operating several years from now.
The ANPR also noted that licensing of operators would be required.
This is required by the Atomic Energy Act, not 10 CFR Part 55, which applies only to licensing of operators of nuclear power plants.
LES suggested that they would propose the types of operators that should be licensed and the requirements for approval.
SEP 81 O Leland C. Rouse 3
I
(
Appendix B of 10 CFR Part 50 covers quality assurance requirements, particularly for nuclear power and reprocessing plants.
The ANPR noted that certain parts of an enrichment plant would be subject to some of the Appendix B requirements.
LES is in agreement with this concept and that of graded quality assurance depending on the level of safety significance..LES also stated that they intend to regard worker safety equal to public safety in terms of the quality assurance provided to safety protection features.
LES stated that they were considering using 0.5 rems whole body equivalent (similar to that for a high level waste repository) as the dose for a decign basis accident. We suggested that, if such a value is used, it be decoupled from the value used for exposures in unrestricted areas in the current 10 CFR Part 20, since the new Part 20 value may be lower for reasons different than those for a design basis accident.
Appendix C of 10 CFR Part 50 covers financial information that must be submitted in license applications for nuclear power plants.
The staff suggested that the format could be used by LES for the application for an enrichment plant.
Appendix E of 10 CFR Part 50 covers emergency planning and preparedness for nuclear power plants. The ANPR noted that Appendix E would not be applicable to uranium enrichment plants.
We pointed out that a recent amendment to 10 CFR Part 70 specified requirements for emergency planning for fuel cycle facilities and that the staff would use this for an enrichment plant as well.
It was suggested that LES also review the emergency plan for Sequoyah Fuels Corp. at Gore, Oklahoma as an example of a recently approved plan for a facility that handles UF6.
LES suggested that the concept in 10 CFR Part 52 for a combined construction permit and operating license be used for licensing of the enrichment plant.
We stated that Part 52 applies only to standardized nuclear power plants. If the LES application contains a final safety analysis report, the application could be considered for both a construction permit and an operating license, although separate approvals would be required.
I 1
The LES plant would enrich uranium to not more than 5 percent U-225, and thus NRC requirements for physical protection of special nuclear material pursuant to 10 CFR Part 73 would be limited to those for material of low strategic significance.
Additional requirements for the physical protection of classified material and matter would be required pursuant to 10 CFR Part 95.
LES is aware of these requirements and is prepared to meet them.
i Material control and accounting requirements in 10 CFR Part 74 apply to facilities where the possession of special nuclear material of low strategic significance is authorized, but production and utilization facilities licensed pursuant to 10 CFR Part 50 are specifically exempted.
NMSS' Division of Safeguards and Transportation intends to amend Part 74 to cover uranium enrichment plants.
Although most of the current Part 74.31 requirements will apply to enrichment plants, additional requirements will be developed
GEP 8 7 la I
Leland C. Rouse 4
specifically for the enrichment facilities.
This amendment is expected to be be promulgated by the time a construction permit could be issued for the LES plant (late 1992).
Meanwhile, the staff will provide guidance to LES on performance requirements for material control and accounting by the end of 1989 and will prepare a standard format and content guide for a fundamental material control plan.
LES described the development of an IAEA safeguards inspection program for the URENCO plants in which the URENCO governments (and thc United States, through NRC and DOE) participated.
The program includes an annual physical inventory, routine inspections 12 times per year, but no in process inventories.
LES expects that a similar IAEA inspection program would be used in the LES plant, and that NRC's material control and accounting requirements would be commensurate with the program.
LES described further preliminary assessments of three potential sites for their plant in Claiborne Parish in northern Louisiana.
They now expect to announce the selection of one site by the end of 1989.
LES asked if there would be some value in submitting topical reports on any items that NRC might wish to review separate from a license application. We l
pointed out that topical reports are normally used when approval for generic or multiple use of an item is anticipated.
This would not seem to be applicable in the case of a single plant, although we did not discourage LES from submitting information on issues for NRC consideration prior to a license application.
They asked also about the use of cross-referencing among sections of an environmental report and a safety analysis report.
We expressed no preference for or against cross-referencing.
The need for any probabalistic risk analysis or individual plant examination of the LES plant was questioned.
The staff stated that we have no intention of performing these types of risk analyses.
LES asked if they should design space for a resident inspector's office in the plant.
The Division of Safeguards and Transportation indicated that they will probably have a resident inspector.
We will ask Region IV if they intend to have a resident inspector at the site.
The staff raised the related issues of licensing requirements for incremental start-up and assembly of centrifuge machines at the LES plant.
LES envisions the installation and operation of new centrifuges to be a more or less continuous activity over a period of about 2 years.
Concurrent with installation, assembly of centrifuge machines, which requires a construction permit, would be ongoing.
Normally, construction of a production or utilization facility must be essentially complete before an operating license can be issued.
NRC will have to consider the LES plan and determine whether it can be accommodated under 10 CFR Part 50 as is or with exemptions, so long as the plan is otherwise acceptable.
The staff is aware that certain URENCO proprietary information may be transferred to the United States and protected from disclosure under an executive order.
However, when this information is submitted to NRC by LES in a license application, the need for NRC to withhold proprietary information
e SEP 21 1989 Leland C. Rouse 5
from public disclosure would have to be justified by LES and accepted by NRC.
We cautioned that this type of information should be limited to the extent practicable to permit'the fullest possible public recor.d of the safety of the proposed plant.
At the'close, LES suggested a next meeting on licensing issues to take place on.0ctober 11, 1989.
At that time, they wish to discuss nuclear criticality safety con.siderations for the plant design and the applicabil;ty of regulatory guides, generic letters, and other NRC publications.
m :ginal.ignen t'y pote: Larsen Peter Loysen Advanced Fuel and Special Facilities Section Fuel Cycle Safety Branch Division of Industrial and Medical Nuclear Safety, NMSS
Enclosures:
As stated cc:
Attached List D*
"hntinn-roject M-45 PDR NRC File Cente n55 Rir IMAF R/F IMSB R/F PLoysen FBrown GBeveridge/SCorne11 1-23 NRC Meeting Attendees j) rT\\,
//
OFC: IMA
- IMAF
/
- IM f
....... f.
,b--
-i NAME:PL ysen n
wift :L ue :
DATE
/
89
/ /89 89h/
89:
OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
SEP 7 138)
LOUISIANA ENERGY SERVICES Attendees September 14, 1989 Meeting Name Affiliation Peter Loysen NRC/NMSS Chuck Nilsen NRC/RES David Marcelli LES/ Duke Engineering Peter LeRoy LES/ Duke Engineering Bill Griffin LES/ Fluor Daniel i Patty Jehle NRC/0GC Jesse B. Swords LES/Doke Engineering Robert L. Fonner NRC/0GC Howard Arnold LES Mike McGarry LES/BCPTR Dick Belprez Fluor Daniel Jerry J. Swift NRC/NMSS Harvey Zibulsky NRC/NMSS Tom Combs NRC/GPA Joanna M. Becker NRC/0GC Sheldon Schwartz NRC/GPA Marvin Peterson NRC/GPA/IP Don Kasun NRC/SGDB Philip Ting NRC/SGDB Mike Finkelstein NRC/0GC Erick Kraska Urenco, Inc.
Roger Poulter Fluor Daniel Bill Mowry Fluor Daniel Gary Comfort NRC/NMSS
m z3 oc.
9.
SEP 2 7/1910
?
- n LOUISIANA ENERGY SERVICES ~
- L
. Attendees..,
~
September 14,'1989 Meeting Antitrust Portion Name Affiliation
. Mike McGarry BCPTR-LES' Peter LeRoy..
LES/ Duke Engineering Bill Griffin-LES/ Fluor Daniel Howard Arnold.
LES W. M. Lambe NRC/NRR Chuck'Nilsen NRC/RES Peter Loysen NRC/NHSS Jerry J. ' Swift NRC/NMSS-Jesse B. Swords-LES/ Duke Engineering David Marcelli LES/ Duke-Engineering Dick Belprez LES/ Fluor Daniel
- Gary Comfort -
NRC/NMSS Patty Jehle-NRC/0GC Janet Urban Department of Justice Joseph Rutberg NRC/0GC J.B. Knotts BCPR M. Finkelstein NRC/0GC
IEP 2 7,1939;
.c L
...- c ;
'MF v
p Memorandum.~ dated' F
. CC:-
GA Arlotto,' NMSS RE Cunningham, INMS GL Sjoblom,.INMS LC Rouse, IMSB JJ Swift, IMSB j
RD Hurt, IMSB
.)
GC Comfort, IMSB.
RF Burnett, SGTR i..
GW McCorkle, SGTR DJ Kasun, SGDB P.. Ting, SGDB
'CJ Sawyer;.SGDB.
i CD Thomas,- Jr., NRR/PTSB
- CW Nilsen, RES/MEB'
.]
J.Rutberg, OGC.
1 JF Scinto. 0GC
-l SA Treby, OGC JM Becker, OGC.
MR Peterson, GPA/IP I
RJ Brady, ADM/DSEC RD Martin, R IV l
AB Beach, R IV j
CL Cain, R IV j
LA Silvious, INF0/SEC' i
JJ Dunleavy, ADM/PERSEC j
DG Kidd,' ADM/FSOSB WM Lambe, NRR,PTSB l
i
-g :
'l j
1 d
n______.___._____..___.
... _ _ _. _