ML20216E557

Summary of 990831 Meeting with Duke Cogema Stone & Webster & DOE Re Design of Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility (MOX-FFF) & License Application Submittal Schedules.Agenda & List of Attendees Encl

ML20216E557
Person / Time
Site:	07003098
Issue date:	09/10/1999
From:	Persinko D NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS)
To:	Pierson R NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS)
References
NUDOCS 9909150077
Download: ML20216E557 (56)

Text

s a o r40 e" t UNITED STATES g ,p NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

't WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001

%**,,,/ September 10, 1999 TO: Robert C. Pierson, Chief Special Projects Branch Division of Fuel Cycle Safety and Safeguards, NMSS THRU: Melanie A. Galloway, Section Chief Enrichment Section Special Projects Branch ,d pg Division of Fuel Cycle Safety '

and Safeguards, NMSS FROM: Drew Persinko, Sr. Nuclear Engineer Special Projects Branch Division of Fuel Cycle Safety

\ s .

and Safeguards, NMSS

SUMMARY

OF MEETING WITH DUKE COGEMA STONE & WEBSTER TO DISCUSS DESIGN AND LICENSE APPLICATION FOR THE MIXED OXIDE FUEL FABRICATION FACILITY On August 31,1999, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff met with representatives from Duke Cogema Stone & Webster (DCS) and the Department of Energy (DOE) to discuss design of a mixed oxide fuel fabrication facility (MOX-FFF) and license application submittal schedules. The meeting agenda and slides used in the presentation are attached (Attachments 1 and 2, respectively). Also attached is a list of attendees (Attachment 3).

The meeting began with a brief update of the status of the MOX project by DCS followed by an update of the status of the Part 70 proposed rule and associated standard review plan and the MOX standard review plan by NRC. The Part 70 rule is out for public comment with the comment period closing on October 13,1999; the staff is also accepting comments on the associated standard review plan. The MOX standard review plan is estimated to be completed in January 2000. DCS presented a design summary that included discussions of process and r facility interfaces, the aqueous polishing process, the MOX fuel fabrication process, and I preliminary design information in the structural, mechanical, electrical, l&C, safeguards and security and nuclear safety areas. Following the design presentation, participants held a discussion concerning licensing schedules. Preliminary schedules presented by the applicant call for an application to be submitted in September 2000, final design to be completed in March 2002, construction to be completed in March 2006, and startup in April 2006. NRC stated that the governing regulations are 70.23(a)(7),70.23(a)(8) and 70.23(b). These regulations require that NRC approve the start of construction after it has determined that the design bases of the

'- [-

7 I

principal structures, systems, and components and the quality assurance program provide reasonable assurance of protection against natural phenomena and the consequences of potential accidents and after an environmental impact statement (EIS) has been completed.

The regulations also require that, before a license is issued to operate a plutonium facility, the NRC must conclude that construction of the principal structures, systems, and components, 9909150077 990910 PDR ADOCK 07003098 C PDR

O

• 2 whose design bases were previously approved by the staff before construction, has been completed in accordance with the application. The staff has not determined the exact mechanism that it would use to allow the start of construction (e.g., letter, license), but the licensing process to be followed will be the same regardless of the mechanism. NRC stated that there can be one or two opportunities for a public hearing and that this is a function of the amount of information submitted by the applicant depending on the path chosen by the applicant. If, at the outset, complete information (design bases, design and operation) is submitted, it is possible to offer one opportunity for a hearing to cover all issues. Alternatively, if the initial submittal includes some lesser amount of information sufficient to support the decision to allow construction to commence but not enough to support issuance of a license to possess material and operate the facility, then there will be two opportunities for hearings. DCS and DOE indicated that a two-submittal approach was more likely due to full inform 8 tion not being available at the time the initial application is submitted.

Since the regulations require that the design bases be approved by NRC, as a minimum, before construction can commence, and Part 70 does not include a definition of design bases, the design bases definition in Part 50 was discussed. The staff concluded that it will review the definition of design bases and include a definition in the MOX standard review plan being developed. In the meantime, the applicant suggested that it will proceed using the Part 50 definition of design bases as a starting point. The NRC staff also suggested that some portions of the application and supporting information (e.g., quality assurance plan and certain computer validation reports) may be submitted before the application is submitted, to support the applicant's proposed schedule. In conclusion, staff suggested that the applicant formulate a revised schedule based on an overall licensing strategy considering information discussed at the meeting. That strategy is a function of the amount of information the applicant intends to include in its initial and subsequent submittals.

Concerning the MOX standard review plan, the applicant indicated that it may be beneficial to discuss the NRC's design bases in priority areas (e.g., criticality) before the draft MOX SRP is released in January 2000. The NRC indicated that it would support these types of meetings before the January 2000 issuance date for the MOX standard review plan for public comment; the applicant will provide a list of priority discussion areas.

The applicant asked how the NRC would address National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requirements for the licensing and construction of the MOX facility and if the NRC planned to provide comments on a DOE Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on MOX. The NRC staff responded that an EIS would be necessary to satisfy NRC requirements under NEPA; the NRC anticipates reviewing DOE's MOX EIS within the context of the MOX license application to determine to what extent the NRC could adopt that work. Since the applicant may submit the DOE's EIS as its environmental report, the NRC will forgo commenting on the EIS at this time.

Attachments: 1. Agenda

2. Slides

3. Attendees

m AGENDA NRC / DUKE COGEMA STONE & WEBSTER (DCS)

MOX MEETING August 31,1999

• Introduction of NRC and DCS staff

• Project Status Update (DCS)

• Status Update of 10 CFR Part 70 and NUREG 1520 (NRC)

• Status Update of MOX SRP (NRC)

• MOX Preliminary Design Information Based on MELOX and LaHague (DCS)

• Schedule of Licensing Submittals and NRC Reviews, and Overall Project Design and Construction (DCS and NRC)

• Closing Remarks and Future Activities (DCS and NRC) 4 ATTACHMENT 1

2 T

N R9 9 E M

E 9 E

C s T 1 A T

d S , T A

r B 1 a E 3 _

t u

g Wtugs c e & u e nf a EA j o S N o i s O r s& T P i my S _

n A

mt o e i

o t of a M _

E t

a n o

C ys S G c i t rl O i

r a o ai C _

t E

t a r b n e K a e l u t U

F s e g a D l

e r

p eM u Rrr a

- F a e e lc

- X l c u O uN Nf o M e i

c f

f O

C3:

==

\

v l

l l

C3 Meeting Objectives and Agenda I

,,:::'.' :::l.. '

Meeting Objectives l

- Reintroduce DCS & new NMSS MOX support staff

{

- Present MOX fuel fabrication facility (MFFF) design i

- Discusslicensingdetails a

Agenda '

- Introduction of DCS and new NMSS staff DCS/NRC

- Project status update Mathews (DCS)

- Status update on 10CFR70, NUREG 1520 NRC

- Presentation of MFFF design MFFF Design staff (DCS)

- Licensing submittals and reviews - Round Table DCS/NRCDOE

- Identification / resolution of tecimicalissues DCS/NRC August 31,1999 Page 1 l

l C3 opening Remarks l

l Review of previous presentation (27 May 1999) l - Introduction / Points of Contact

- Overview of MOX project, fabrication facility

- Discussion oflicensmg strategy i

I I

August 31,1999 Page 2 j l \

I

1 i

introducing C3 Duke Cogema Stone & Webster, LLC Private-sector consortium contracted by DOE ly

• Mission: convert plutonium to spent nuclear fuel

- Design, license, construct, and operate a MOX fuel fabrication y facility (MFFF)

_. - Perform qualification program for MOX fuellead assemblies

- Design shipping containers for MOX fuel assemblies

] - Irradiate MOX fuel at commercial reactors

% 1 0

E l

l August 31,1999 page 3 l 1

i

\

l C3 nuke, cogema, stone & Webster, Ltc l

..:::'. :::l.. _ _

m a

3 h

l i

Stomt & mEsst(R N

3 x

SaDs. -~~ coctMA, k.

AStoneaWebster s

(

N

, - . , - - w; g , , , i c- ~

{ey_ NM N.W_.

_O _ i  ;

.~-_:---.

August 31.1999 Page 4

I i

C3 DCS organization / Points of Contact

- . m. _,,,,,,,,,,

DL*L COGLMA STONE S u tB5Tf.R . me sem PO Bos 31847 "T1

" '"' (8.smumhe.gs ts nu thalane. NC 28231-184 7 .

O a p-wi .m.. . ; ? :: 7;, .  ? ~ .. c.

w aua soom trn. sene "...- .-r,,,,

N (hrknu, NC 28202 FAX k . . '..[ *.[ . " ^ [ . , ,M' ' '

T (704)382 5815 (104) $73-7538 9

M r'ess snna 2 . ,... ... , , , ,

T3 (% sn m.

M Elh '^ - .. tem 5 -.. 'i '. . .. .,

.e ,rreu x,

=... _

g Fa u er p c3.e.,,.m.

6 -

. ren, i F e,.

, _ r.,

=an

~.. .e.,nem [C.' ,,,

Idanagrreni August 31,1999 Page 5 C3 Mox Project overview j +

Complements immobilization as part of DOE's surplus 0 plutonium disposition program a

y +

MOX contract divided into four phases 3 - Base contract: MFFF plant design and license application 1 qualification program g identification of utility modifications

- Option one: construction of MFFF 3

% - Option two: startup and operation of MFFF 0 inadiation of MOX fuel cf.

8 - Option three: deactivation August 31.1999 l' age 6

i l

C3 Project status

..:::'. :::.~,,.

l

+

Detailed planning, project baseline, Project Management  :

Plan in DOE review (establishes baseline)

Interactions with NRR by Fuel Qualification and Fuel Irradiation; qualification and irradiation plans well underway Initial Preliminary Design presented to DOE

+

QA plan approved, development of QA procedures in progress

+

MOX fuel assembly transportation package certification plan in DOE review August 31.1999 Page 7 C3 MOX Project Schedule Overview MFFF Final Design March 2002 j -

Complete Construction March 2006 t:! .

Facility Startup April 2006

[ .

Commence batch irradiation j at mission reactors September 2007 li, e

a c

8-o (please note all dates are planning estimates)

August 31,1999 Page 9

)

F

- F F

+-

' M

(

r y e t g i

l a i n c a a nM F og z

n ai n i

o b e a

r t r e _

a Bn i

c d i

g .

b r EnE .

a F

F F

^

~

l F -

' e M _

u

~

F X _

O A

MS R

E T

M E B GE 3C CE OW K E 8

UN D O T

S

MOX FFF Design Organization C3 l .'t.t:=,~ I 2 -. z a ~~. *:=.~. ~gg-

_ qh.._~

l b . M i es, nn.

5 MM'

~

' '3

._' = ::. .&.5- )

i+ 4_-

1 k

August 31.1999 Page 10 k Design summary C3 " ~ ~ -~

General Major Assumptions Process / Facility Interfaces MFFF Interfaces with FQ, FI and PDCF Major Technical Accomplishments I

i i

August 31,1999 Page Ii

1 e s l

C3 General '

36-month design schedule Major schedule milestones 1

Major Components of Design

- MOX Process Design

- Aqueous Polishing Design

- Facility Design

- License Application August 31.1999 Page 12 l

Major Assumptions i C3 ~

MOX process (MP) based on MELOX design Aqueous Polishing (AP) based on La Hague expenence Purchase selective equipment overseas Initiate equipment procurement in Month 37 (Part of Option 1)

Will evaluate need for long lead procurement 13aseline for Pu isotopics composition August 31.1999 Page 13

d Process / Facility Interfaces C3 Process Design develops

- Process flow diagrams

- Equipment sizing

- Initial machine location drawings Facility Design develops U.S. Criteria and BOP design Process Design developing building layouts Facility Design developing initial generic site plan Work split on process equipment design based on Type I, II, or Ill classification August 31.1999 Page 14 i

l l

l Process / Facility Interfaces (cont.)

C3

' ~ ~ ' ~ ^

1 Both develop equipment specifications (systematic transfer ofresponsibility). ,

Process Group will review and approve the design of process equipment by Facility Group August 31,1999 Page 15

C3 MFFF Interfaces with FQ, F1 and PDCF

• Pu isotopics Pu impurities Pu loading w%

Pu density Host site agreements Specification for fuel shipping cask August 31,1999 Page 16 Major Technical Accomplishments-C3 Aqueous Polishing Building l

Documentation of process choices l Define process design criteria Perform lessons leamed from La Hague Establish flow diagram Outline of description notes Perform preliminary criticality calculations notes ,

Preliminary sizing of process units for input to general layout August 31,1999 Page 17

i.

Major Technical Accomplishments -

C3 Mox Process (MP) Building Basic principles of plant layout Preliminary general flow chart j Draft safety basis ofdesign Draft MP design requirements )

Perform lessons learned from MELOX Preliminary sizing ofprocess units for input to I general layout Perform preliminary criticality and themial calculations notes I

August 31,1999 rage Is Major Technical Accomplishments -

C3 ~

Facility Design

' ~ ~ ~ ' ^ ^ ~

Drafted design criteria for :

- Nuclear Technology

- Structural, civil and geotechnical

- Mechanical

- Electrical, S&S and I&C Developed conceptual site plan August 31,1999 Page 19

1 J

QUALITY ASSURANCE MOX Project Quality Assurance Plan

- Quality Levels COGEMA QA Plan Design Control Design Verification August 31,1999 Page 20 l

Design Features & Design Criteria C3 ~ ~~

Aqueous Polishing MOX Process Facilities August 31,1999 Page 2l

C3 Aqueous Polishing and MOX Process main steps Puo, AP 4

mesolut%

ca, Am, u 4

• gg_ 00, MP cycle 4 i, Powder master Puo, >WM eM final bhd , Pellets ,, Rods + Fuel Rods 7 conversion production production assembling j p n

--n... _., i j 4

MOx FUEL August 31,1999 Page 22 Aqueous Polishing Process C3 step 1. PuO2 Dissolution by electro-generated Ag(II)

Process selected because it is very efficient, independent of PuO2 powder characteristics, step 2. Pu Purification by solvent extraction Process selected because it yields very little Pu leakage and has a very high gallium decontamination factor.

August )l,1999 Page 23 I

Aqueous Polishing Process C3

..:::'.'::::l..

step 3. Conversion into PuO2 by oxalate calcination Process selected because it yields a PuO2 powder routinely used for MOX fabrication This process will be continuous 41e u i 99 r.,. 24 l

1 J

C3 Aqueous Polishing:u Pu Characteristics

- W ARADE _ ,,

Input (Oxide powder from PDCF)

- granulometry: 100%<500 pm 99%>5 m

- Isotopy: (criticality calculations) 239Pu: <96%;

2ePu:>4%;

- Specific gravity (criticality calculations): <7 Impurities

._ 241 Am<0.7%

- Ga<l2000 pg/g of Pu

- others impurities section 114 of SOW August 31.1999 fage 25

c C Aqueous Polishing: Pu Characteristics W-GRADE Pu

,,:::'/::t,.

Output (Sinterable Oxide powder)

Isotopy: (criticality calculations) 239Pu : <96% ; 2ePu :> 4% ;

- Specific area:~10 m 2 g

- Granulometry: :~14 pm 24 Am < 5 ppm

- Ga < 0.1 pg/g of Pu

- Specific gravity::~1.7

- Specific gravity (criticality calculations):<3.5

- Humidity content (criticality calculations) : 3%

Augusi 31,1999 Page 26 l

l I

DISSOLUTION PROCESS MAIN  !

C3 EQUIPMENT

..;;;'::::.. ~~~^~

l DECANNING EQUIPMENT (located in glove boxes) I Designed to allow the opening of ARIES Type cans (crimped lid) and liNFL Type cans (screwed lid) j It is assumed that the ARIES convenience can will be modified to reduce Pu waste (to be determined with PDCF)

DISSOLVER (located in a glove box)

Geometrically safe equipment Made of TITANE to chminate corrosion problems Volume: ~ 56L FILTER (located in a E love box)

To remove any remaining PuO2(The dissolution is complete under normal operation)

Below the smallest particle diameter RECEIVING VESSEL (located in a hmited access room)

Made of TITANE to climinate corrosion problems Geometrically safe equipment Augusi 31,1999 Page 27

C3 PURIFICATION PROCESS MAIN EQUIPMENT

,,:::'.':::3..

PULSED COLUMNS for purification (located in a limited access room)

Extraction Acid scrubbing Pu stripping Raffinates diluent washing This ew Jpment is used at the UP2-800 and UP3 plants.

The HeiS is less than one meter and is constant (UP3 has operated for 10 years).

MIXER $E1TLERS for solvent tegeneration (located in a compartment topped by a glove-box)

Pu barrier Solvent regeneration steps sodium carbonate washing seda washing nitric acid washing Aurust it,1999 Page 2s 1

CONVERSION PROCESS MAIN I C3 EQUIPMENT

~~

PRECIPITATORS (2 in the polishing facility)

Located in a glove box Pyrex stined bowl  !

Magnetic stiner FILTER Located in a glove box Flat, under vacuum filter FURNACE Located in a glove box Electrically heated cylmder Rotary screw located inside the furnace moves the powder The screw speed is adjusted to control the rnean residence time in the calcination section I

August 31,1999 Fage 29 I

4 6 CONVERSION PROCESS MAIN C3 EQUIPMENT

..;;;'.'::::l,.

IIOMOGENIZERS

- Located in a glove box

- 2 geometncally safe tumbling mixers

- Capacity 24 Lg ( about one day of production)

- Sized to cool the powder.

August 31,1999 Page 30 C3 CANNING MAIN EQUIPMENT

. :::'.'!llll..

INTERMEDIATE CAN l Same dimensions as the La flague convenience can, to reuse COGEMA canning equipment (proven technology and existing design)

Screwed or expendable seallid (TUD)

CANNING SYSTEM Located in Glove boxes Reuse of the existing canning head of La flague T4 facility 1RANSF ER TO THE MP Pneumatic transfer for security reasons to avoid decontamination of the reusable cans August 31,1999 Page 31

p..

i

! Aqueous Polishing Design Criteria C3 L ..:::'. r:::..

Principle design criteria for Aqueous Polishing process are:

Transfer of proven dissolution, purification, conversion processes Transfer of proven technology from La IIague plant, or Marcoule plant ~80 % of process equipment Weapon grade Pu received from PDCF Aqueous Polishing process throughput: 3.5T/ Year Waste strategy (EIS is bounding)

August 31. T999 Page 32 l

l I

1 l

C3 Mox Process

~

l ..:::'. ::::..

i

!

• A-MIMAS Principles L

e Flowchart of production line

. Typical process units

- Primary dosing I -Secondary dosing I

August 31,1999 Page 33 i

I i

c MOX PROCESS GENERAL FLOW C3 CHART

.,:::'."T;." .

Main bases for the flow chart are :

Sole type fuel assembly design (PWR)

Pu content in primary blend : 20 %

Scraps recycling rate capability : 16 % (in final product)

Operating period for the entire MOX process : 42 weeks / yr Process charged Pu into commercial quality fuel :

99.5 % i August 3I,1999 Page 34 MOX PROCESS LAYOUT C3 51AIN DEVROPh1ENT AND ADAPTATION FRoNI 51ROX

~ ^^ ~~

Incorporated in the present layout : ,

Room arrangement based on contamination hazard I Heavy units located on ground floor Process areas C3 surrounded by corridors No C3 process areas on building perimeter Electrical and control cabinets close to the related process units August 31,1999 Page 35

MOX Process Design criteria C3 Principle design criteria for MOX process are :

Transfer of proven A-MIMAS process

'iransfer of proven technology from MELOX ~80 % of process equipment Weapon grade Pu U.S. Plant throughput : 70 MTHM / yr .

Fuel specification according to FRAGEMA technical file 99.5 % of process charged Pu into commercial quality fuel Waste strategy (EIS is bounding)

Augest 3 t,1999 Page 36 Facilities Design C3 ~

Design Features Design Criteria l

l August 31,1999 Page 37

Site Concept - Design Features C3 Persomici access Commercial truck deliveries Change rooms, rest rooms and lunch room outside the MMA SSTs will transport oxide to the MFFF truck bay.

1 SSTs will transport MOX fuel anemblies offsite from MFFF truck bay.

l August 31, !?99 Pp;. 38 Facility Features - Conceptual Site Layout

~

L_ n_

r b

• em &

0 ===

u E= U" 2_ l _p ,

g -

i w

7__ i August 31.1999 Page 39 l

Facility Design Criteria C3

.,:::'.'!,'; l..

Draft Basis of Design documents developed

- Structural

- Mechanical

- Electrical / I&C/S&S

- Nuclear Safety Designate

- quality classifications

- general requirements

- applicable codes and standards

- specific requirements August 31,1999 Page 40 structural C3 Draft BOD documents prepared

- Structural Design

- Architectural Design

- Site /Geotechnical Design No significant differences compared to normal DOE /NRC Practices Codes & Standards consistent with NRC expectations Acceptance Criteria consistent with risk-based safety classification August 31.1999 Page di

ll I

l:

C3 Structural Structural Design BOD will be referenced / invoked by individual SSC description f

Architectural Design will be conventional quality {

and address facility access, occupancy and site

{

planning Site /Geotechnical BOD defines foundation design requirements

)

Site /geotechnical BOD sets site configuration  !

requirements and relationships between facilities August 31,1999 Page 42 l

l Meclianical C3 Fluid Systems BOD IIVAC Systems BOD Building Service Systems BOD Fire Safety BOD Equipment BOD Seismic BOD August 31,1999 Page 41

l 1 Mechanical '

C3

.,::l'.'.: l .

1 Establishes Design Requirements for systems and equipment Establishes applicable design Codes and Standards Establishes U.S. Requirements for glovebox design Functional safety & quality requirement documents Incorporates Host Site Requirement August 31, 1999 page 44 l

l l

Electrical C3 l

Electrical Basis of Design I&C Basis of Design Safeguards and Security Basis of Design l

l l

August 31,1999 Pare 45 l

Electrical C3

..:::'.'::::l..

General description of the electrical system layout

- Normal standby emergency power sources

- Electrical system availability Applicable Codes and Standards Raceway design requirements Wire and Cable design requirements Exterior Utility Service Interior Utility Service Augut 31,1999 Page 46 Electrical C)

Grounding Lighting Standby and Emergency Power Protection Philosophy Separation and Physical Independence August 31.1999 Page 47

7--

I C3 Electrical Systems Communications and Alarm Systems -

- The requirements for the various communications sub-l systems used within the facility as well as offsite communications methods will be described Heat Tracing and Freeze Protection Cathodic Protection August 31,1999 Pate 48 C3 instrumentation and controls

.,:::'::::::.. ~ ~ ~

General Requirements

- Provides general requirements for instrument and control Codes, Standards, And Guides

- Identifies NRC Requirements and Guidelines

- Identifies Industry Codes and Standards (ANS, EPRI, IEEE, ISA, NEMA, NFPA, SAMA, UL)  !

August 31.1999 PsFe 49 i

I

C3 Instrumentation and controls Instrumentation Systems

- Monitor variables and systems over their anticipated ranges of operation

- Display instrumentation provides accurate, complete, and timely information pertinent to system status

- Graphics displays represent process equipment schematically.

l August 31.1999 Page 50

)

C3 Instrumentation and centrols Control and Protection Systems

- Prevent the unmonitored release of radioactive material i and prevent the inadvertent occurrence of a criticality

- The Plant Control System is PLC based

- The Plant Protection System is PLC and hardwired based distributed control system independent of the control system i

i August 31, 1999 Parr $1 i

l l

C3 safeguards and security

..::l'.'!T .'l .

General Requirements

- Threats

- Protection of Special Nuclear Material & Vital Equipment

- Security & Restricted Access Arcu Applicable Codes and Standards  !

- Provides definition of applicable DOE orders and rnanuals, NRC required documents and industry codes I and standards August 31,1999 Page 52 i

C3 safeguards and security l

+

Specific Requirements

- Intrusion Detection and Assessment Systems

- Access Control & Entry / exit inspection

- Barriers & Locks

- Secure Storage

- Communication Maintenance Power

- Nuclear Material Centrol & Accounting Safeguards August 31.1999 Page 53

i l

Nuclear Safety C3 I Integrated Safety Analysis i

l Nuclear Criticality Safety Environmental Permitting i Radiation Protection l

l Emergency Preparedness l

Deactivation

. Waste Management I

l August 31,1999 Page 54 Nuclear Safety C3 ~~ ~

~

Integrated Safety Analysis

- Based on requirements from proposed 10 CFR 70 changes (6/2/99), NUREG-1520, NUREG-1513, OSHA, EPA Nuclear Criticality Safety  ;

- Accidental criticality prevention, double contingency, crit monitors, NCS admin control program described Environmental Requirements

- Air, surface water, drinking water, RCRA, noise control are described.

August 31,1999 . Page 55

a O Nuclear Safety C3

• Radiation Protection

- RP design features are described, including an ALARA Design: faci'lity layout, rad zone maps, access control, containment and confinement, shielding ,

- Includes Rad monitoring: area, airborne, and effluent l I

- Also IIealth Physics: facilities and equipment,  ;

outside/ host site support l

• Emergency Preparedness j

- llost Site: site Emergency Plan input

- Emergency response organization, facilities, equipment August 31,1999 Page 56 l

l Nuclear Safety l C3 l -

Deactivation

- Deactivation is an intermediate step between shutdown

! & decommissioning Waste Management

! - Includes TRU waste storage, glovebox dust abatement, shipping containers, deactivation

- WIPP and host site WAC l

August 31,1999 Page 57

e

• l Q

.m o

b a

.cJD h

4 4

4 M i k

• H 5 "'

o.

OE w d OO b l l

CD safety Preliminary llazards Analysis (PHA)

- Good engineering practice

- Early identification of significant impacts on the MOX FFF design

- Support of the initial identification ofIROFS

- Support of functional classification of equipment

- Identify initial bounding hazards and accidents for initial screening process I

i A cou si.im ea,e so l

C3 safety

• Evolving 10 CFR Part 70,61

- Extension of performance requirements in 10 CFR part 20 l

- Generalincorporation of accident performance requirements

- Additional requirements with regard to worker safety

- Clarification of chemical safety performance requirements Issues associated with worker dose

- May impact MELOX design to address worker dose j

- May add complexity to the design

- May lead to operatioris and maintenance concerns

- Requires detailed analysis 6

I Aurum 31,1999 page 60 l

l

i

, e 1 l

l l

l l

C3 safety ,

Chemical Process Safety / Monitoring 29 CFR 1910 - OSHA worker safety

- Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between NRC and the Occupational Safety and licalth Administration (OSilA) 40 CFR 68 - EPA Risk Management Programs

- Development of Risk Management Plan Aqueous Polishing chemical monitoring and control Augus 31,1999 Page 61 C3 Nuclear criticality safety Criticality Safety Programs Criticality Safety Criteria Criticality Control Evaluation Methodology Benchmark Determination August 31,1999 Page 62

l C3 Criticality Safety Prograrns i

Administrative programs in accordance with ANS-8.19-1996, Administrative Practices for Nuclear Criticality Safety QA program in accordance with ANS-8.19-1996, Administrative Practices for Nuclear Criticality Safety

. Training program in accordance with ANS-8.20-1991, Nuclear Criticality Safety Training

• Operational inspections, audits, assessments, and investigations function to be regularly perfonned in accordance with standard NCS principles August 31,1999 Page 63 CD criticality safety criteria

+

Double contingency principle compliance Criticality Analysis

- Upper Safety Limit (USL)

• Administrative safety margin, ok,,

• Account for method bias and uncertainty based on statistical analysis of benchmark experiment results

- Worst-case treatment or statistical accounting for design, mechanical, material, and fabrication uncertainties Single parameter limits of ANSI /ANS-8.1 August 31,1999 Page 64

I C3 criticality control Criticality Control Modes

- Geometry control whenever possible

- Mass and moderation control when required for process and operability reasons August 31.1999 Page 65 Nuclear Criticality Safety Evaluation C3

,,:::,;;;;;,, Meihodology NCSEs prepared according to standard US procedures and criticality methodologies (based on ANSI /ANS-8.1 as invoked by RG 3.71)

- U.S. standard criticality code (KENO) and neutron cross-sections included in SCALE 4.4 applied NCSEs originated by the Process Group NCSEs independently reviewed by the Facility Group August 31,1999 Page %

. o C3 nenchmark Determination Process selection & data analysis Validation

- I Sensitivity and uncertainty techniques i Available benchmark experiments I i

Assunt 31,1999 Page 67 I

C3 criticality summary

+

Standard US Criticality Safety Evaluation Methodology i Procedure has been prepared to ensure standard US methodology is used a

Standard US criticality code (KENO / Scale 4.4) will be used a

Criticality calculations will be validated using the latest methods of benchmark validity determination including parameter trending analysis and ORNL methods Standard administrative uncertainties will be used

+

Nuclear Criticality Safety Evaluations will be originated by the Process Group and independently reviewed by the Facility Group Criticality Safety Administrative Programs will be used on the MFFF August 31.1999 Paste 68

C3 Radiation Protection Regulatory

- 10CFR70, Domestic Licensing of Special Nuclear Material

- 10CFR20, Standard for Protection Against Radiation Primary Guidance documents

- Regulatory Guides

- NUREGs

- ANSI Standards

- ICRP Publications AuFue 31,1999 Page 69 c

C3 Radiation Protection

..:::'.':::::.. - - - . . - - . . _ . . . . . . ~ -

+

Removes 241 Am [241 Am/(241 Am+ Pu Total)) < 0.0005%

+

Automated operations Major radiation sources in shielded cubicles

+

Ifigh maintenance equipment separated Radioactive source material removed for maintenance Augua 31,1999 Page 70 l

r i

L-

C3 Radiation Protection Exposure limited through automation and remote control Biological shields placed between radiation sources and operators Reduced radiation

- PuO2 Powder

- C-Pu/W-Pu = 5 X DER

+ Same shielding as MELOX - reduced occupational exposure Occupational exposure goal: ALARA August 31, IM p,ge 7 j

l C3 Radiation Protection Shielding Calculations Based on MELOX results of shielding and dose calculations

- Revise to suppon design changes

- Perform calculation to suppon new designed units l Computer codes (U.S.) )

- SCALE 4.3 or 4.4 I

- MCNP 4B or 4C  :

l 1

l i

Auf ust 31.1999 Page 72 l

i

p

.e O C3 Radiation Protection

+ - Radiation Monitoring - Selected Equipment l - Extemal Radiation l

• Local Area Monitors (Gamma & Neutron)

- Intemal Radiation

• Continuous Air Monitors movable / near breathing zone

• Continuous General area airborne sampling laboratory analysis

• Operator foot-pedal for glove-box entries

- Moveable covers all glove-ports

- Notification for glove tearlothes problems

- Remote alarms liealth Physics & Control Room

+

Particulate Monitoring l

August 31,1999 Page 73 I

C3 ConGnement Systems Design  !

.l.. I

)

Static Confinement Confinement barriers

- First confinement system

. Solution <ontaining vessels, powder-containing equipment completed by gloveboxes or cells (AP)

- Second confinement system

• Proecss rooms and building l

l l

t August 31,1999 Page 74 l

l l

r

.. c.

l C3 confinement systems Design

{

Dynamic Confinement  ;

Confinement Zones Exhaust & Depressurization Systems l for MFF and Polishing Buildings include:

- GloveboxNitrogenillanketing

{

- Primary Confinement Zone C4 Exhaust (Very liigh Depressurization TliD)

- Secondary Confinement Zone C3 Exhaust (iiigh Depressurization llD)

- Tertiary Confinement Zone C2 Exhaust (Moderate i Depressurization MD)

- Clean Areas Exhaust System Zone CI (Conventional 11VAC system)

- Number ofl! EPA filters on exhaust depends on contamination risk August 31,1999 . Page 75 C3 Fire Safety Design Features at MFFF

..:::'.':::::.. , J ll Fire Areas With Minimum of 2 Hour Rated Fire Barriers Automatic and Manual Fire Suppression Capabilities

)

Automatic Fire Detection Systems throughout  !

Facility Wide Fire Alarms throughout Fire Prevention Augum 31.1999 Page 76

-. O C3 Electrical System MAJOR FEATURES Redundant Preferred (Normal) Power Feeds Essential and Emergency Diesel Generators

• Electrical Separation Per IEEE 384 August 31,1999 Page 77 C3 simplified Electrical One-Line i "f,"""'""m"ln"*

mMarnemmiss a wrtwoa m nisse bb bb Y Y us ss wrn a.m a we ry ms s EWWfW 8ut 8 A

.. .s.

August 31,1999 Page 78 f

C3 Instrument and controls

.,:::'.': ':t.. l MAJOR FEATURES Control By Programmable Logic Controllers With Operator Interfaces Control is Unitized MMIS Provides Supenision and Data Storage Redundancy When Required Safety Trips Hardwi.ed August 31.1999 Page 79 C3 ControlSystem Architecture p ..,_.

. o.

l l.......... ... ..

, - , , . ...:. l l

[ $ , :! 2 ~ N UE i..... . . . . . .

.- - ~ .

._ &lL

== i_4 '-

, i h;- . ,-

_L_____J ___________LL___

. m t.-.i .

. .t'. leuants.or (swi.cf ,setmeta eum v .c,c, el Ne.*ael Augun 31,1999 Page 80

.- e C3 Safeguards MAJOR FEATURES Measurement, Control and Accountability Program in Accordance with 10 CFR Pan 74, Subpart E

• Fundamental Nuclear Material Control Plan Will be Prepared In Accordance with NUREG-1280

• Program Will Use Classic Safeguards Techniques

+ IAEA Interface via 10 CFR Part 75 August 31,1999 Page 81 1

C3 security

.,:: '. *! : l.. __ _ . _ .__

MAJOR FEATURES Security program will be in accordance with Department of Energy Orders MOX Fuel Fabrication Facility will be constructed at a DOE site and will be protected by DOE contracted security forces Level ofintegration of the Fuel Fabrication Facility security system into the host site security system will be determined after the Record of Decision i August 31.1999 Page 82 i

l l

• • %gfk of

/l N I- f, '

y \

,q fbjw$( i H'IN'1[

e /

l, e. r

[]y,s

, lp4 $47

!! llll

'fy ti J

(!$ il h

,?,l l

l

!! llI /

i El f /'s ll /

l g E! ll .

k l

! i l

l

~

4-n -

i o

oe ss i

nu c s s ni eD c

i e Ll b Fa FT F d Mnu 4

o R

R A E T

M S E B GE 3 OW CC E K E U N DO T

S

G, '

't.":.7 MFFF Licensing Round Table Discsussion I

l 1

Construction Authorization and C3 Operating License

,, ::.,.,7;.,.,,

- 70.23(b): requires" Commission approval" for construction of a plutonium facility Information required for submittal described in {70.22(f)

(design basisinformation)

+ How will NRC go about authorizing constmction?

How does new ISA requirement impact process?

p,g, g Tuesday, August 31,1999 i

ATTENDEES NAME AFFILIATION ADDRESS / PHONE Amy Bryce NRC Washington, DC 20555 301-415-5848 Andrew Persinko NRC 301-415-6522 Melanie Galloway NRC 301-415-7266 Robert Pierson NRC 301-415-7192 Rex Wescott NRC 301-415-6727 Michael Kelly NRC 301-415-8137 Tom Pham NRC 301-415-8154 i

Lawrence Berg NRC 301-415-6215 Fred Burrows NRC 301-415-8110 Albert Wong NRC 301-415-7906 Charles Cox NRC 301-415-6755 M. Srinivasan NRC 301-415-5676 Yen-Ju Chen NRC 301-415-5615 Rocio Castaneira NRC 301-415-8103 Wayne Burnside NRC 301-415-2211 Ed Brabazon DCS 400 S. Tryon St.

Charlotte, NC 28202 704-373-7959 Ray Fortier DCS 400 S. Tryon St.

Charlotte, NC 28202 704-373-8245 Toney Mathews DCS 400 S. Tryon St.

Charlotte, NC 28202 704-373-7832 ATTACHMENT 3

i- .

2 NAME AFFILIATION ADDRESS / PHONE

'Jamie Johnson DOE MD-12 1000 Independence Ave.

Washington, DC 20585 202-586-5960 Patrick Rhoads DOE MD-12 1000 Independence Ave.

Washington, DC 20585 202-586-7859 Finis Southworth DCS MD-01 1000 Independence Ave.

Washington, DC 20585 202-586-0149 Peter Hastings DCS 400 S. Tryon St.

Charlotte, NC 28202 704-373-7820 Don Williams ORNL PO Box 2009 Oak Ridge, TN 37831 423-574-8710 Faris Badwan LANL PO Box 1660 i Los Alamos, NM 87545 i 505-665-5984 i Bill Hennessy DCS 400 S. Tryon St.

Charlotte, NC 28202 j 704-373-8235 Richard Berry DCS 400 S. Tryon St.

Charlotte, NC 28202 1 704-373-8248 l John McConaghy DCS 400 S. Tryon St.

Charlotte, NC 28202 704-373-3021 Gary Bell DCS 400 S. Tryon St.

Charlotte, NC 28202 704-373-7962 i i

i L

3 NAME AFFILIATION ADDRESS / PHONE Steven Dolley NCI 1000 Conn Ave, NW #804 Washington, DC 20036 202-822-8444 Mary Olson NIRS 142416* St., NW #404 Washington, DC 20036 202-328-0002 Felix Killar, Jr. NEl 1776 I St, NW Suite 400 Washington, DC 20006 l 202-739-8126 Charles Sanders FCF PO Box 11646 Lynchburg, VA 24506 804-832-5216 Edmund Kelly NFS 1700 Rockville Pike #400 Rockville, MD 20852 301-770-5510 t

Kathy Martin DOE 1000 Independence Ave.

l Washington, DC 20585 202-586-6975 Becky Apter DCS 400 S. Tryon St.

! Charlotte, NC. 28201 Laurence Oret DCS SGN St. Quentin-En Yvelines I 78182 Cedex France Lionel Gaiffe DCS SGN St. Quentin-En Yvelines 78182 Cedex I France l l

Michel Dedonder DCS SGN St. Quentin-En Yvelines 78182 Cedex France

o ,, e

, , September 10, 1999 2

whose design bases were previously approved by the staff before construction, has been completed in accordance with the application. The staff has not determined the exact mechanism that it would use to allow the start of construction (e.g., letter, license), but the licensing process to be followed will be the same regardless of the mechanism. NRC stated that there can be one or two opportunities for a public hearing and that this is a function of the amount of information submitted by the applicant depending on the path chosen by the applicant. If, at the outset, complete information (design bases, design and operation) is submitted, it is possible to offer one opportunity for a hearing to cover all issues. Alternatively, if the initial submittal includes some lesser amount of information sufficient to support the decision to allow construction to commence but not enough to support issuance of a license to possess material and operate the facility, then  !

there will be two opportunities for hearings. DCS and DOE indicated that a two-submittal approach was more likely due to full information not being available at the time the initial application is l

submitted.

Since the regulations require that the design bases be approved by NRC, as a minimum, before construction can commence, and Part 70 does not include a definition of design bases, the design bases definition in Part 50 was discussed. The staff concluded that it will review the definition of 1 design bases and include a definition in the MOX standard review plan being developed. In the l meantime, the applicant suggested that it will proceed using the Part 50 definition of design bases as a starting point. The NRC staff also suggested that some portions of the application and supporting information (e.g., quality assurance plan and certain computer validation reports) may be submitted before the application is submitted, to support the applicant's proposed schedule.

Ir conclusion, staff suggested that the applicant formulate a revised schedule based on an overall licensing strategy considering information discussed at the meeting. That strategy is a function of I the amount of information the applicant intends to include in its initial and subsequent submittals.

Concerning the MOX standard review plan, the applicant indicated that it may be beneficial to discuss the NRC's design bases in priority areas (e.g., criticality) before the draft MOX SRP is released in January 2000. The NRC indicated that it would support these types of meetings before the January 2000 issuance date for the MOX standard review plan for public comment; the applicant will provide a list of priority discussion areas.

The applicant asked how the NRC would address National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requirements for the licensing and construction of the MOX facility and if the NRC planned to provide comments on a DOE Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on MOX. The NRC staff responded that an EIS would be necessary to satisfy NRC requirements under NEPA; the NRC anticipates reviewing DOE's MOX EIS within the context of the MOX license application to determine to what extent the NRC could adopt that work. Since the applicant may submit the DOE's EIS as its environmental report, the NRC will forgo commenting on the EIS at this time.

Attachments: 1. Agenda

2. Slides

3. Attendees Distribution: 4titC File Center PUBLIC SPB r/f FCSS r/f Docket: 70-3098 NMSS r/f G:\SPB\AXP1\MOXmtgsumm_831.wpd (*See previous concurrence)

CFC SPB E _SPB , ), h SPB E NAME APersinko:al D *MGalloway DATE 9/07/99 h /99 9/07/99 C = COVER E = COVER & ENCLOSURE N a NO COPY OFFICIAL RECORD COP ~Y

whose design bases were previously approved by the staff before construction, has been completed in accordance with the application. The statf has not determined the exact mechanism that it would use to allow the start of construction (e.g., letter, license), but the licepsii5g process to be followed will be the same regardless of the mechanism. NRC stated that there can be one or two opportunities for a public hearing and that this is a function of the a ot7nt'of information

. submitted by the applicant depending on the path chosen by the applic t/if, at the outset, complete information (design bases, design and operation) is submitted possible to offer one opportunity for a hearing to cover all issues. Alternatively, if the ini ' ubmittal includes some lesser amount of information sufficient to support the decision to a onstruction to commence but not enough to support issuance of a license to possess mat i and operate the facility, then there will be two opportunities for hearings. DCS and DOE ind' d that a two-submittalapproach was more likely due to full information not being availab the time the initial application is  !

submitted.  ;

Since the regulations require that the design base approved by NRC, as a minimum, before construction can commence, and Part 70 does n i lude a definition of design bases, the design bases definition in Part 50 was discussed. Th ff concluded that it will review the definition of design bases and include a definition in the standard review plan being developed. In the meantime, the applicant suggested that it roceed using the Part 50 definition of design bases as a starting point. The NRC staff als ggested that some portions of the application and supporting information (e.g., quality a ance plan and certain computer validation reports) may be submitted _before the application)s ubmitted, to support the applicant's proposed schedule.

In conclusion, staff suggested that applicant formulate a revised schedule based on an overall licensing strategy considering inf ation dison .d at the meeting. That strategy is a function of the amount of information the icant intends to include in its initial and subsequent submittals.

Conceming the MOX stan d review plan, the applicant indicated that it may be benefic .3 discuss the NRC's desigr7bases in priority areas (e.g., criticality) before the draft MOX Sk u releasedin January 2000. he NRC indicated that it would support these types of meetings beu ,

the January 2000 iss ' ce date for the MOX standard review plan for public comment; the applicant will provide ist of priority discussion areas.

The applicant as

/

how the NRC would address National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requirements foy e licensing and construction of the MOX facility and if the NRC planned to provide comm ' s on a DOE Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on MOX. The NRC staff responded th. an EIS would be necessary to satisfy NRC requirements under NEPA; the NRC anticipates r ~ lewing DOE's MOX EIS within the context of the MOX license application to determine Jo what extent the NRC could adopt that work. Since the applicant may submit the DOE's EIS as its environmental report, the NRC will forgo commenting on the EIS at this time.

(NOTE: Several slides concerning the MOX process shown at the meeting were subsequently l determined to be proprietary and are therefore not included in the attachment.)

Distribution: NRC File Center SPB r# FCSS r/f NMSS r#

Docket: 70-3098 7),6/

TM /C G:\SPB\AXP1HIOXmtesumm831.wpd OFC SPJ b SPB SPB b NAME ersinko:al DHoadley M

~

DATE 9/ 7 /99 9/ /99 9/ b

' C = COVER E = COVER &l ENCLOSURE N = NO COPY OFFICIAL RECORD COPY

q 3 2 ,A J 6 .. . /3 compl:ted in tccordinc3 with tho applic; tion. Tha staff his not d:,t:rmin:d tha exact m:chanism ,

th".t it would use to allow the start of construction (e.g., letter, license), but the licensing process to be followed will be the same regardless of the mechanism. NRC stated that there can be one or two opportunities for a public hearing and that this is a function of the amount of information submitted by the applicant depending on the path chosen by the applicant. If, at the outset, complete information (design bases, design and operation) is submitted, it is possible to 9ffer one opportunity for a hearing to cover all issues. Alternatively, if the initial submittal includes some lesser amount of information sufficient to support the decision to allow constructionJd' commence but not enough to support issuance of a license to possess material and operate he facility, then there will be two opportunities for hearings. The DCS/ DOE indicated that a two; mittalapproach was more likely due to full information not being available at the time the' nitial application is submitted. /

Since the regulations require that the design bases be approved by' C, as a minimum, before construction can commence, and Part 70 does not include a defi iffog of design bases, the design bases definition in Part 50 was discussed. The staff conclud tryat it will review the definition of design bases and include a definidon in the MOX standard vipw plan being developed. In the meantime, the applicant suggested that it will proceed usi h Part 50 definition of design bases as a starting point. The NRC staff also suggested ttja s e portions of the application and I supporting information (e.g., quality assurance plan and c ain computer validation reports) may be submitted before the application is submitted, to'su ort the applicant's proposed schedule.

In conclusion, staff suggested that the applicant fort'nul e a revised schedule based on an overall licensing strategy considering information discuss'ed the meeting. That strategy is a function of the amount of information the applicant intends 'to ' clude in its initial and subsequent submittals.

Concerning the MOX standard treview plan,/

applicant indicated that it may be beneficial to discuss the NRC's design bases in priority eas (e.g., criticality) before the draft MOX SRP is released in January 2000. The NRC indicat that it would support these types of meetings before the January 2000 issuance date for th OX standard review plan for public comment; the I applicant will provide a list of priority dis ssion areas.

The applicant asked how the NRC auld address National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requirements for the licensing any construction of the MOX facility and if the NRC planned to provide comments on a DOE Erwironmental Impact Statement (EIS) on MOX. The NRC staff responded that an EIS would t)dnecessary to satisfy NRC requirements under NEPA; the NRC anticipates reviewing DOE's MOX EIS to determine if the NRC could either fully or partially adopt that work. Since the applicarit may submit the DOE's EIS as its environmental report, the NRC will forgo commenting on the flS at this time.

Topics to be discusse,d at future meetings are shown in the attached slides.

(NOTE: Several slides concerning the MOX process shown at the meeting were subsequently determined to be proprietary and are therefore not included in the attachment)

Distribution: NRC File Center SPB r/f FCSS r/f NMSS r/f Docket: 70-3098 G:\SPB\AXP1\MOXmtgsumm831.wpd OFC SPB h SPB SPB NAME ersinko:al DHoadley MGalloway DATE 9/ I /99 9/ /99 9/ /99 C = COVER E = COVER & ENCLOSURE N = NO COPY OFFICIAL RECORD COPY l

7

/,,. 2

('

compint:d in cccordanca with the application. The staff has not determined the exact mechanism that it would use to allow the start of construction (e.g., letter, license), but the licensing process to be followed will be the same regardless of the mechanism. NRC stated that there can be one or two opportunities for a public hearing and that this is a function of the amount of information submitted by the applicant depending on the path chosen by the applicant. If, at the outset, complete information (design bases, design and operation) is submitted, it is possible to gffer one opportunity for a hearing to cover all issues. Alternatively, if the initial submittal inclydes some lesser amount of information sufficient to support the decision to allow construction commence but not enough to support issuance of a license to possess material and operate e facility, then there will be two opportunities for hearings. The DCS/ DOE indicated that a two- mittalapproach was more likely due to full information not being available at the time the nitial application is submitted. /

Since the regulations require that the design bases be approved by' C, as a minimum, before construction can commence, and Part 70 does not include a defi ' iop of design bases, the design bases definition in Part 50 was discussed. The staff conclud it design bases and include a definition in the MOX standard vi w;at it being plan will review the definition developed. In the of meantime, the applicant suggested that it will proceed usi th Part 50 definition of design bases as a starting point. The NRC staff also suggested t s e portions of the application and supporting information (e.g., quality assurance plan a c ain computer validation reports) may be submitted before the application is submitted, to up ort the applicant's proposed schedule.

In conclusion, staff suggested that the applicant formul e a revised schedule based on an overall licensing strategy considering information discuss'ed t the meeting. That strategy is a function of the amount of information the applicant intendslo ' ciude in its initial and subsequent submittals.

/

Concerning the MOX standard review plap, t applicant indicated that it may be beneficial to discuss the NRC's design bases in priority eas (e.g., criticality) before the draft MOX SRP is released in January 2000. The NRC indicat that it would support these types of meetings before the January 2000 issuance date for the OX standard review plan for public comment; the applicant will provide a list of priority dis,. ssion areas.

The applicant asked how the NRC uld address National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requirements for the licensing an construction of the MOX facility and if the NRC planned to provide comments on a DOE E ironmental Impact Statement (EIS) on MOX. The NRC staff responded that an EIS would necessary to satisfy NRC requirements under NEPA; the NRC anticipates reviewing DOE's OX EIS to determine if the NRC could either fully or partially adopt that work. Since the applic t may submit the DOE's EIS as its environmental report, the NRC will forgo commenting on the IS at this time. l Topics to be discuss at future meetings are shown in the attached slides.

(NOTE: Several slides concerning the MOX process shown at the meeting were subsequently determined to be proprietary and are therefore not included in the attachment)

Distribution: NRC File Center SPB r/f FCSS r/f NMSS r/f Docket: 70-3098 G:\SPB\AXP1\MOXmtgsumm831.wpd OFC SPB h SPB SPB NAME ersinko:at DHoadley MGalloway DATE 9/ i /99 9/ /99 9/ /99 C = COVER E = COVER & ENCLOSURE N = NO COPY OFFICIAL RECORD COPY