ML20248F804
| ML20248F804 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 04/04/1989 |
| From: | Stello V NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20247D611 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-89-354, TASK-PINV, TASK-SE SECY-89-107, NUDOCS 8904130203 | |
| Download: ML20248F804 (5) | |
Text
,
I
' [Q 40 h
'o
)
POLICY ISSUE April 4, 1989 (Notation Vote) srcy-89-107 For:
The Commissioners From:
Victor Stello, Jr.
Executive Director for Operations
Subject:
REGULATION OF URANIUM ENRICHMENT FACILITIES
Purpose:
To inform the Commission of the status of activities related to uranium enrichment regulation:
1.e., the plans of URENCO, Inc., to construct and operate a uranium enrichment facility in the United States, Congressional
]
actions on uranium enrichment legislation, and the staff's review of comments on the advance notice of proposed rule-j making (ANPR) on regulation of uranium enrichmen,t; and to i
{
recommend.
b' I
Background:
The ANPR on uranium enrichment regulation was published in j
the Federal Register on April 21, 1988 (53 FR 13276), and an j
extension of the ANPR comment period was granted at the 1
request of the U.S. Department of Energy (00E) from July 21, 1988 to October 22, 1988 (53 FR 35827).
In SECY-88-278, the staf f informed the Commission of the extension and the staf f's intent to defer a recommendation on rulemaking for uranium enrichment regulation.
In addition, the staff advised the i
Commission that it would provide, in six months, the results of its review of the above-mentioned activities related to uranium enrichment regulation, and a status report on the need for and timing of rulemaking for uranium enrichment regulation, j
Discussion:
Plans of URENCO, Inc.
The staff has met once with URENCO, Inc, during the past six months [ January 31, 1989 at U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Headquarters).
This meeting was significant,
)
for it brought together the people from NRC, 00E, Department of State, and URENCO, Inc, who would be instrumental in j
permitting the transfer of classified information from j
URENCO in Europe to URENCO, Inc, in the United States.
i l
I
Contact:
l Peter Loysen, NHSS Intornatica a " E0d
- l in accordance n;tnyhe freedom of Infoma 2-0685 l
t Act, exegf wJs, - ~
f0lA 2F i
f l
L Th'e' Commis s ioners.
'2 y
J
.'Such transfer 1s essential for'URENCO, Inc.,.to' initiate.
~
I preparation of an application for licenses'to construct and.
x for licenses to construct and operate a uranium enrichment a
plant in the United States.
A conclusion was reached that-1 n
there.fs an existing agreement between NRC and the Federal Minister of the Interior of the Federal Repubite of Germany.
under which the initial transfer of information could occur.
The Chairman sent a' letter to the Joint Committee:of the-
.URENCO. governments ~on March 2, 1989, to indicate that.the 4
transfer would be acceptable to.NRC. A major topic of discussion at the' meeting was DOE's. position that the URENC0, Inc., project should be reviewed at the senior levels of the U.S. Government,.for issues' relating.to national security and energy policy.
Although DOE did not object to.the URENC0, q Inc., project going forward for licensing, the new Secretary
[
of Energy would have to review the proposed construction'and l
operation of-the plant for national policy issues. separate.
and independent of any NRC findings required by the Atomic Energy Act or.NRC' regulations on the application for licenses.
A-brief statement about this matter, and a summary report of -
the' January 31, 1989 meeting, were also included-in the Chairman's March-2, letter.
The-staff is unsure what actions URENCO, Inc., will pursue, absent any national policy -
i decisions by the Secretary of Energy. ['
Legislative Actions Several bills on uranium enrichment legislation were introduced in the 100th Session of Congress.
None of the bills was enacted and all' died with the ending of the Session.
So far this year, two bills on uranium enrichment legislation ~have been introduced in the 101st Session of Congress, one by Senators Ford (D-KY) and Johnston (D-LA),
the other by Representative Hubbard (D-KY).
The' bills would establish the United. States Enrichment Corporation as a wholly-owned government corporation, with certain assets transferred to it from the DOE, including the gaseous diffusion enrichment plants, research and development activities, and uranium feedstocks and preproduced enriched uranium.
The Ford-Johnston bill would require.NRC licensing of existing gaseous diffusion uranium enrichment plants as soon as practicable after appropriate regulations are in place.
The Hubbard bill.would exempt the Corporation from NRC licensing of existing gaseous diffusion uranium enrichment plants. /
[!
~
5.erw i
mm mm______._____-.___.___
N issConers' 3
Such a change would require future licensing of uranium enrichment plants, whether existing or new government s
plants, or commercial p1, ants such as the proposed URENCO, 1
Inc. plant, not under 10 CFR Part 50 regulations, but under the materials licensing regulations of 10 CFR Parts 40-and 70.
The Commission had encouraged such a change in coments on.
proposed legislation in the 100th Congress..
The staff also recently reviewed a draft Administration bill and provided staff comments to the Office of Management and Budget (02 ).
The staff also reviewed, for'04, a redraft of the bill.. NRC expects to see another draft, before the bill is sent to Congress.
The staff has also reviewed a draf t bill prepared by Representative Sharp (D-IN).
Additional bills, including amended versions of the Ford-Johnston and the Sharp'b 1s, are expected to be introduced in the current session.
~
e ANPR Comments In response to the publication of the ANPR for uranium i
enrichment regulation, 14 comment letters were received from utilities, engineering companies, private citizens, trade associations, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and DOE.
From the comment letters, the staff has identified six topics of specific concern to the commenters.
One major concern is related to the complexities of the. procedural requirements of the licensing process, in part necessitated by the Atomic Energy Act 6nd the use of 10 CFR Part 50, which currently is the vehicle for domestic licensing of uranium enrichment facilities.
Eight of the commenters believed that a new rule for uranium enrichment licensing should not be prepared at this time, and that licensing should be done pursuant to Part 50, as the ANPR said it could.
Only two commenters believed that a new rule should be prepared.
Two others, including 00E, were aware of proposed Congressional action that might amend the Atomic Energy Act to no longer call a uranium enrichment plant a production facility, and suggested that NRC regulations for materials licensing, 10 CFR Parts 40 and 70, would be appropriate for licensing of uranium enrichment.
(The ANPR did not discuss the possibility of licensing uranium enrichment pursuant to i
Parts 40 and 70.) Two others had no comment on this matter, l
and one had no objection to a new rule.
l l
l
{
r:.
i i
/
4 The Commissioners The principal technical concerns expressed were on the suggested design criteria for resistance to natural phenomend and the suggested liniits for chemical releases as I
the result of a facility design basis accident. A sumary of the technical conenents follows:
1.
The criteria for the design basis for natural phenomena should be reviewed and further developed.
2.
The range of limits for chemical releases and potential public exposure, as the result of a design basis accident, was reasonable, but the selected value should be closer to the lower end of the range.
3.
The design criteria for radiological and criticality controls should be de-emphasized.
4.
The rulemaking action should be limited to cover facilities enriching uranium to a maximum of 20 percent.
5.
The requirement for licensing of operators of uranium enrichment plants is questionable.
6.
Special consideration should be given to licensing of facilities using atomic vapor laser isotope separation (AVLIS) technology.
The staff believes that it can address all the technical concerns raised by the comenters, within the constraints of the Atomic Energy Act and the NRC regulations. This holds-true whether licensing takes place under the existing Part SC, 4 new regulation, or Parts 40 and 70.
In view of the status of legislative efforts, which niight change by law the way NRC is required to license uranium enrichment, and the slow progress that the sole potential applicant, URENCO, Inc., is making, the staff sees no need to develop a new rule for uranium enrichment regulation at this time.
If regulation is performed pursuant to Parts 40 ano 70, as has been encouraged, the staff believes that some revisions to these requirerrents anc additional criteria and guidance will likely be necessary to acconrodate uranium enrichment, including the aforementioned technical concerns. Meanwhile the staff will complete its work to resolve the technical concerns raised by the ANPR, revise the criteria as appropriate, and make the information available as guidance to DOE and potential applicants.
x 4 3
.r.
- 5 e
The Commissioners g
em Recommendation:
Coordination:
The Office of the. General. Counsel has reviewed this paper and has no legal objection.
f
" ' (. ?
'chfgW 7
VIctorStallo,Jr.
Executive Direc' tor for Operations Commissioners' comments (or consent) should be provided directly to the Office of the Secretary by c.o.b. April'9, 1989.
Commission Staff Office comments, if any, should be submitted to the-Commissioners NLT Wednesday, April 12, 1989, with' an information ' copy to the Office'of the Secretary.
If the paper is of such a nature that it requires additional time for analytica1' review and comment, the Commissioners ano the Secretariat should be apprised of'whe'n comments may be expected.
DISTRIBUTION:.
Commissioners OGC
'0IA GPA Regional Offices EDO
' SECY j
_ _.