An NRC quarterly newsletter providing licensing information on a Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility

 Mixed Oxide Xchange

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission NUREG/BR-0284 September 2002 

 Vol. 2, No. 3 

Public Meeting held in

North Augusta, Georgia

On August 27, 2002, NRC staff held a public meeting in

North Augusta, South Carolina to provide information to

the public on the Draft Safety Evaluation Report (DSER). 

The meeting consisted of a general session with

presentations by Andrew Persinko, David Brown, and John

Hull and a poster board session with technical discussion by

the lead technical specialists in each of the eight main

technical areas of the DSER.

MOX project manager Andrew Persinko gave an overview

of the DSER and NRC’s licensing and review process. 

The schedule for future reviews concerning

(Continued on page 3 - See PUBLIC MEETING)

 DCS Responds

 to Draft SER

On July 9, 2002, Duke Cogema Stone &

Webster (DCS) transmitted its response to

the staff’s Draft Safety Evaluation Report

(DSER) on the Construction Authorization

Request (CAR). NRC had requested

DCS’ review of the DSER for technical

accuracy. 

In a 35-page enclosure, DCS provided a

representative list of technical comments

(Continued on page 4 - See DSER)

Dave Brown, NRC, discusses the environmental aspects of the Draft Safety Evaluation Report on the proposed construction of a Mixed Oxide

Fuel Fabrication Facility at NRC’s August 27th Public Meeting in North Augusta, Georgia.
Mixed Oxide Xchange - 2 - September 2002

NRC Quality Assurance At Work

On August 6-8, 2002, NRC staff visited DCS offices in Charlotte, North Carolina to begin a two-part inoffice review of quality assurance (QA) issues for the proposed Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility

(MFFF). QA issues include organization and responsibilities, quality levels for different structures, systems

and components in the proposed MFFF, and the overall application of the NRC-approved MOX Project

Quality Assurance Plan, or MPQAP. The MPQAP was approved by the NRC in October 2001.

A key element of the MPQAP is the definition of quality levels for various systems, structures and

components in the proposed MFFF. For example, items that would be relied on for safety, or IROFS, are

designated “quality level 1,” or QL-1. Four primary quality levels, QL-1 down to QL-4, are applied in order

of decreasing importance to safety.

In the August 2002 meetings,

NRC staff identified different

structures, systems or

components in the MFFF design

that would have different quality

levels. The staff then evaluated

the appropriateness of the QL

designations, in the context of

each system’s relative

importance to safety in the

proposed MFFF. This

information will be used during a

second in-office meeting

planned for Cogema-SGN

offices in Bagnols-sur-Ceze,

France in September.

The Cogema-SGN office is

designing the MOX process for

DCS. NRC staff will visit this

office to examine how the

MPQAP quality levels are being

applied in the design of the

MOX process. For example,

QL-1 items require higher levels

of design change authorization, data reliability, technical basis and document process control than QL-4

items. The NRC review is designed to ensure that these higher level functions are working and will provide

the necessary level of quality prescribed in the MPQAP.

The staff’s findings will be provided in a report this fall. Please check our web site often for new reports on

the staff’s licensing activities: http://www.nrc.gov/materials/fuel-cycle-fac/mox/licensing.html.

Meeting Summaries

June 18, 2002

NRC staff and Frametome

ANP met to discuss issues

related to Topical Report

BAW-10238NP, “MOX Fuel

Design Report”

August 28-30, 2002 In-office

review of MOX supporting

information in the areas of

nuclear criticality safety and

chemical safety at DCS

offices in Charlotte, NC 

 NRC’s Mixed

 Oxide Fuel

 Infoweb

Find meeting summaries,

updates related to MOX,

frequently asked

questions and past issues

of the Mixed Oxide

Xchange. See:

http://www.nrc.gov/mate

rials/fuel-cycle-fac/mox/

licensing.html.
Mixed Oxide Xchange - 3 - September 2002

(Top) Bill Gleaves, NRC, discusses plant systems and (bottom picture, facing camera in blue shirt) Alex Murray, NRC, discusses red oil and

chemical safety at the August 27th Public Meeting.

Revised DCS Environmental Report Received by

NRC

On July 11, 2002, NRC received from DCS

a revised Environmental Report (ER) for

technical review. The ER contains

information previously provided in response

to NRC requests for additional information, as well as

new information regarding how changes to the

Department of Energy’s (DOE) Surplus Plutonium

Disposition (SPD) Program will affect the proposed

MFFF. This information will assist the staff in

preparing a draft Environmental Impact Statement, due

to be issued for public comment in February 2003.

DOE SPD Program changes and the NRC’s decision to

delay issuance of the Draft Environmental Impact

Statement were described in the March 2002 and June

2002 editions of the Mixed Oxide Xchange, respectively

.

The NRC will hold public informational meetings in

September to describe the DOE SPD Program

changes and the new schedule for the

Environmental Impact Statement. Meetings

will be held 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. at the

following locations:

September 17, 2002

N. Augusta Community Center

495 Brookside Avenue

North Augusta, South Carolina

September 18, 2002

Coastal Georgia Center

305 Fahm Street

Savannah, Georgia

September 19, 2002

Charlotte-Mecklenburg Government Center

600 E. Fourth Street

Charlotte, North Carolina

( PUBLIC MEETING--Continued from page 1)

the Construction Authorization Request was also 

outlined. NRC Health Physicist David Brown 

presented on the status and schedule of the 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and other 

environmental issues. John Hull, from the Office 

of the General Counsel, briefly talked about the

status of MOX public hearings. Chip Cameron 

served as moderator taking questions 

and comments from the audience 

throughout the meeting.

After the general session, the attendees 

were invited to participate in a poster

board session where they could view

poster boards on chemical safety, 

criticality safety, confinement and 

ventilation systems, electrical/ 

instrumentation and control, fire

protection, mechanical systems, quality

assurance, and safety analysis. A lead 

technical specialist for each area was

available to answer questions. 
Mixed Oxide Xchange - 4 - September 2002

(DSER--Continued from page 1)

organized by chapters of the DSER. In addition to editorial comments, clarification of statements

and some responses to open items were made in the areas of safety assessment of the design

basis, nuclear criticality safety, fire protection, chemical and process safety, radiation safety,

aqueous polishing process and chemistry, ventilation and confinement systems, electrical systems,

instrumentation and control systems, fluid transport systems, human factors and management

measures. 

DCS agreed with a majority of the open items that were identified in Appendix A of the DSER. 

DCS encouraged the staff to conduct further in-office reviews at DCS’ Charlotte offices, to

resolve some of the remaining open items. For the areas of criticality and chemical safety in

particular, DCS thought that such in-office reviews would be helpful for staff because additional

supporting documents would be available there for NRC review.

Overall, DCS found that the review of the CAR was complete. However, DCS expressed

concern with the “apparent disparity in the level of detail requested by the Staff from one chapter

to the next for construction authorization”.

GANE’s Request for Security Clearances

On June 7, 2002, Georgians Against Nuclear Energy (GANE) submitted to the Atomic Safety and Licensing

Board (ASLB) “[GANE’s] Application For Security Clearances.” GANE is seeking Level L security

clearances for three individuals who will be representing GANE in upcoming hearings on the DCS request

for authority to construct the proposed MFFF. An “L” access authorization permits an individual access on

a need-to-know basis to classified information. GANE seeks to review classified information which it

anticipates will be generated in the course of the hearings. 

On July 5, NRC staff responded to GANE’s application, and requested that the ASLB certify to the

Commission the question on the extent to which special hearing procedures applicable to handling classified

information should be used in the MFFF hearing. On July 18, 2002, the ASLB certified this question to the

Commission.

MOX PM: Andrew Persinko

PHONE: (301) 415-6422

EMAIL: AXP1@nrc.gov
Mixed Oxide Xchange - 5 - September 2002

 

ALPHABET SOUP

(commonly used acronyms in this newsletter)

ASLB Atomic Safety Licensing Board MFFF Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility

CAR Construction Authorization Request MOX Mixed Oxide Exchange

DCS Duke Cogema Stone & Webster MPQAP MOX Project Quality Assurance Plan

DOE U.S. Department of Energy NRC U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

DSER Draft Safety Evaluation Report PM Project Manager

EIS Environmental Impact Statement QL Quality Level

GANE Georgians Against Nuclear Energy SPD Surplus Plutonium Disposition

IROFS Items Relied on for Safety

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards

Division of Fuel Cycle Safety and Safeguards

Mail Stop T-8A33

Washington, D.C. 20555-0001

 Lead Editor: David D. Brown

 Editor: Sharon A. Steele

 Editor: Tamara Powell

 Design and Production: Danielle A. Hoadley

Mixed Oxide Xchange is published quarterly to highlight recent news and events associated with the

NRC’s licensing of a mixed oxide fuel fabrication facility. We welcome your suggestions for

improvement of this newsletter. If you have comments or suggestions, you may contact us at

moxfeedback@nrc.gov. To subscribe or unsubscribe, please send an e-mail to subscribe@nrc.gov. All

issues will be e-mailed unless you provide your mailing address and indicate your preference to receive

copies by U.S. Postal Service.