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 March 2004 

Vol. 4, No.1

Other MOX License Applications

In October 2003, the DOE filed an application for

license to export up to 140 kilograms of plutonium

dioxide to the Cadarache and MELOX MOX fuel

fabrication facilities in France. The plutonium would

be used to fabricate four MOX fuel lead test

assemblies, which would be returned to the U.S. for

proposed MOX fuel qualification tests in the Catawba

Nuclear Power Station (see discussion below). 

According to DOE, the lead assemblies will be used to

confirm fuel performance and to demonstrate U.S.

capability to receive, inspect, store, and load the fuel

assemblies at commercial reactors. DOE requested the

license by mid-June 2004 to transport the material to

France in July-August 2004. 

The NRC’s Office of International Programs is

responsible for reviewing export license applications

and seeking Executive Branch and internal NRC staff

views to determine whether U.S. export licensing

criteria are satisfied. In December 2003, NRC

received a petition for hearing and leave to intervene

from Greenpeace International, Charleston Peace, and

the Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League. The

Commission acts as the presiding officer in any

proceedings conducted for export licensing. At this

time, the Commission is considering both the

petitioners’ contentions and opposing filings submitted

by the DOE. 

The proposed use of the MOX lead test assemblies in a

U.S. reactor is the subject of another licensing action

before the NRC. The Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation is reviewing a February 2003 license

amendment application from Duke Energy to use the

lead assemblies in the Catawba Nuclear Power Station

near Charlotte, NC. In August 2003, Blue Ridge

Environmental Defense League (BREDL) filed a

hearing request and petition to intervene in this

licensing action. In October 2003, BREDL filed nine

contentions and in December 2003 filed additional

late-filed contentions.

On March 5, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board

Panel issued a Memorandum and Order (MO), ruling

on standing and contentions. The March 5 Order rules

on 13 safety and environmental contentions proposed

by BREDL and on contentions proposed by the

Nuclear Information and Resource Services (NIRS). 

One BREDL contention had been withdrawn. The

Board consolidated and reframed the BREDL

contentions into 3 contentions. The Board admitted

none of the NIRS contentions and NIRS is not admitted

as a party to this proceeding.

Status of MOX Safety Review

In November 2003, the Department of Energy (DOE)

directed Duke COGEMA Stone & Webster (DCS) to

move the location of the proposed Mixed Oxide Fuel

Fabrication Facility (MFFF) controlled area boundary

(CAB) to coincide with the MFFF restricted area

boundary. As a result, NRC staff delayed issuance of

the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and

Final Safety Evaluation Report (FSER), pending new

information from DCS on the impacts of the CAB

change to the MFFF design. On March 24, 2004, DCS

announced that DOE has decided to make the MFFF

CAB coincident with the boundary of the MFFF site,

the 41-acre parcel on which the MFFF would be

located, and which encompasses the 14-acre MFFF

restricted area. DCS expects to submit a revised

Construction Authorization Request (CAR) and

Environmental Report (ER) in June 2004. Following

receipt of the revised CAR and ER, staff will issue a

new schedule for issuance of the FEIS and FSER.

Staff is continuing to work to resolve the remaining

nuclear criticality safety and chemical safety open

items in the Draft Safety Evaluation Report. The staff

has prepared written evaluations, including dissenting

staff views, for most of the remaining chemical safety

open items and provided them to NRC upper

management for decisions.

On February 12, 2004 and March 12, 2004, DCS

submitted to NRC additional information for staff to

review pertaining to the remaining nuclear criticality

safety open item

and the titanium

fire issue,

respectively. 

Staff continues to

review this

information.

MOX Project Manager:

Andrew Persinko

Phone: (301) 415-6522

Email: axp1@nrc.gov
Mixed Oxide Xchange - 2 - March 2004

NRC Differing Professional Views

At the NRC, employees have an opportunity to make

known their best professional judgements, even those

judgements that may differ from a prevailing staff

view, management decision or policy position, or with

proposed or accepted agency practices. When an

employee wishes to express his or her judgement, and

cannot resolve the concern through discussions with

staff or immediate supervisors, then the employee may

write a Differing Professional View, or DPV.

During the review of the MOX facility Construction

Authorization Request, one employee has written two

DPVs. The first DPV addressed the applicant’s use of

a specific computer code (ARCON96) to model the

effects of chemical spills. This DPV also asked

management to provide clear guidance on the

resolution of generic issues related to the selection

and use of computer codes. In an October 2003

decision, the Director of the Office of Nuclear

Material Safety & Safeguards (NMSS) supported the

prevailing staff view that use of the code was

acceptable. The NMSS Director also made specific

recommendations to the Director of the Division of

Fuel Cycle Safety and Safeguards (FCSS) regarding the

other generic issues raised in the DPV. In a letter to

the NMSS Director in January 2004, the FCSS

Director affirmed that these recommendations had

been implemented.

In a second DPV, the employee raised concerns about

whether, in the event that hazardous chemicals that are

not licensed by NRC are accidentally spilled, safety

features outside of the MOX facility emergency

control room would be needed to ensure continued

safe handling and storage of licensed nuclear material. 

The Director asked FCSS management and staff to

review the matter. The FCSS review was performed by

an individual not involved in the MOX project. The

results of that review were documented in a September

3, 2003 memorandum to the Director, NMSS. By

memorandum dated December 23, 2003, FCSS

informed the Director, NMSS, that FCSS had

completed the required actions and that closure of the

issue was done appropriately.

On November 20, 2003, before FCSS staff completed

its required actions, the employee filed a Differing

Professional Opinion (DPO). A DPO is a formal

process available to employees who are not satisfied

with the outcome of the DPV process.

NRC values these procedures because it allows

managers to hear all sides of a debate. The DPV and

DPO processes also protect employees from

retaliation for expressing a different view.

Working with the Russian Federation

In February 2004, staff traveled to Moscow, Russia to

meet with members of the Russian Federation

Gosatomnadzor (GAN), the U.S. Department of Energy

(DOE), and the European community to discuss the

development of Russian regulations and safety guides

for nuclear waste. The regulations and safety guides

are related to the Russian mixed oxide fuel project and

are part of the Russian infrastructure support project

funded by DOE. The interactions between the various

parties provides GAN with a western regulatory

perspective and will result in improved second draft

versions of these regulations and safety guides.

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

Editor: David D. Brown

Design and Production: Linda M. Gross

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

Find meeting summaries, updates related to the proposed MFFF, frequently asked questions and past issues

of the Mixed Oxide Xchange.

Go to http://www.nrc.gov/materials/fuel-cycle-fac/mox/licensing.html.