Mr. Persinko Visits 

 French Regulators French Regulators

Mr. Andrew Persinko is the NRC project manager for

the Division of Fuel Cycle Safety and Safeguards

licensing activities related to the MOX fuel fabrication

facility. He recently returned from a work assignment

with the French nuclear regulatory authority. The

following narrative is a brief overview of this

experience:

“From April 30, 2001 through July 13, 2001, I

worked with the French direction de la surete des

installations nucleaires (DSIN) (the central safety

department located in Paris and a Paris

suburb, Fontenay-aux-Roses) and the

Institut de protection et de surete

nucleaire (IPSN) (institute for nuclear

safety and protection) at various locations

in France. During my visit, I obtained

(Continued on page 5 - see VISIT)

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 2001 

 Vol. 1, No. 3 

NRC Receives

 Response to Request

On August 31, 2001, the NRC received from Duke Cogema Stone

& Webster (DCS) written responses to its June 21, 2001 requests

for additional information. The DCS submittal includes responses

to 239 separate requests. The NRC staff are currently reviewing

the responses and continuing the evaluation of the Construction

Authorization Request with this new information. The staff have

included the contingency of a second round of requests and

responses in their schedule, which is tentatively scheduled for

later this year. A draft Safety Evaluation Report that summarizes

the staff’s findings is scheduled for April 30, 2002.

 ASLB

 Receives

 Petitions

On August 13, 2001, the following

organizations filed contentions related to

their petitions to intervene with the Atomic

Safety Licensing Board regarding the

NRC’s hearings for the MOX fuel

fabrication facility: Georgians Against

Nuclear Energy (GANE); Blue Ridge

Environmental Defense League (BREDL);

and Environmentalists, Inc. GANE also

submitted on that date a “motion to dismiss

licensing proceeding or, in the alternative,

hold it in abeyance,” which

Environmentalists, Inc. subsequently

supported in an August 23, 2001 submittal. 

DCS and the NRC staff filed responses to

GANE’s motion to dismiss on August 21,

2001 and August 27, 2001, respectively, in

which both DCS and the NRC staff urged

the Licensing Board to deny the motion. 

On August 28, 2001, GANE filed a motion

for leave to reply to the DCS and NRC staff

responses, which was granted by Judge

Thomas Moore on August 31, 2001. 

GANE filed their reply on September 7,

2001.

The Licensing Board held an all-day

prehearing conference in Room A1 of the

North Augusta Community Center starting

at 9:00 am, Friday, September 21, 2001. 

The Board heard arguments on:

1) GANE’s motion to dismiss; 2) the

standing of the Petitioners to intervene in

the proceeding, and; 3) the admissibility of

the Petitioners’ proferred contentions. 
Mixed Oxide Xchange - 2 - September 2001

NRC Issues Scoping Summary Report

The NRC has been drafting an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) since March 7, 2001. The

preparation of an EIS began with a scoping process, which included public meetings in April and May

2001 in: North Augusta, South Carolina; Savannah, Georgia; and Charlotte, North Carolina. Issuance of

the Scoping Summary

Report on August 9, 2001

concluded the scoping

process. The scoping

process is intended to

gather information from

the public and

stakeholders on significant

issues that should be

considered in preparing

the EIS and additional

alternatives that should be

considered.

Comments received at the

North Augusta, Savannah

and Charlotte meetings

helped determine the

scope of the proposed

action and no-action

alternatives. For example,

the EIS will evaluate the

potential impacts of using

sand filters instead of high

efficiency particulate air

(HEPA) filters, and the

potential impacts of using

wet and dry plutonium

purification processes for

the proposed action. Two no-action alternatives were identified through scoping: (1) continue storage of

all the surplus plutonium at the present U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) sites in an unaltered form; (2)

immobilize all the surplus plutonium at the Savannah River Site. Other concerns raised at these meetings

included human health impacts, waste management, terrorism, environmental justice, and cumulative

impacts. Comments received at the Charlotte meeting focused on reactor issues. These included

concerns over using MOX fuel in the planned Catawba and McGuire reactors, transportation of the MOX

fuel, and emergency preparedness.

(See SCOPING - page 4)

Today’s Special Today’s Special

 ALPHABET SOUP 

(Commonly Used Acronyms in this Newsletter)

ASLB Atomic Safety Licensing Board

BREDL Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

DCS Duke Cogema Stone & Webster

DOE U.S. Department of Energy

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

FFF Fuel Fabrication Facility

GANE Georgians Against Nuclear Energy

HEPA High Efficiency Particulate Air

MOX Mixed Oxide 

NRC U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Mixed Oxide Xchange - 3 - September 2001

NRC Discusses 

Requests with DCS

On June 21, 2001, NRC forwarded requests for additional

information on the Construction Authorization Request to

Duke Cogema Stone & Webster (DCS). On July 26,

2001, the NRC met with DCS to discuss the NRC’s

requests. The meeting was held in the North Augusta

Community Center and was open to the public.

DCS opened the meeting with a discussion of the

concepts of “design” versus “design basis,” an important

distinction for the construction authorization phase (see

next article, this page). DCS explained that additional

design information would be provided to NRC to help the

staff continue review of the proposed design bases. 

However, DCS stated that design information, which does

not require NRC approval at this stage in the licensing

process, would be clearly differentiated from design bases

information that does require NRC approval.

DCS also discussed how they will demonstrate that

safety-related equipment in the MOX fuel fabrication

facility will be reliable enough to prevent or mitigate

accidents. DCS conveyed their position that their

qualitative approach to demonstrating reliability, which

includes for example, commitment to a well-implemented

quality assurance program, the adoption of industry codes

and standards and a commitment to implement

management measures, should provide adequate

assurance to the NRC staff that the performance

requirements of 10 CFR 70.61 will be met. The NRC

staff responded that these commitments, along with some

additional information regarding minimum reliability

ratings for important safety features, will be necessary to

reach a conclusion regarding the design bases.

NRC staff also raised the issues of appropriate site

boundaries, limits on releases of radioactive material to

the environment and human dose limits, and whether

Savannah River Site workers should be treated as workers

or members of the public for the purposes of protection

under the NRC’s radiation protection regulations (10 CFR

Part 20). These issues are still being resolved as part of

the staff’s ongoing review. 

DESIGN vs.

 DESIGN BASES

 frequent topic of discussion at

 meetings between the NRC and DCS

is the question of what is “design basis”

versus “design” information. This

distinction is important because the

NRC’s decision to approve construction

is dependent on whether the “design

bases” for the MOX facility described in

DCS’s Construction Authorization

Request are adequate to protect against

accidents and natural phenomena

hazards. The staff is not required to

approve the actual facility “design” at

this stage of the project. So what is the

difference between design and design

bases?

The difference is probably best explained

by an example. Imagine a pressure vessel

filled with hot water and steam. For the

purpose of this example, assume that a

steam pressure less than 100 psig is

necessary in order to meet the NRC

performance requirements of 10 CFR

70.61. Therefore, the steam pressure is

important to safety. The safety-related

design basis, then, is the steam pressure

must not exceed 100 psig. However, the

type of pressure relief devices used 

(pressure relief valves or rupture discs)

would be considered design information. 

Design information is generally chosen at

the discretion of the applicant’s designer

in order to meet the design basis. 
Mixed Oxide Xchange - 4 - September 2001

Meeting

Summaries

May 29, 2001

NRC staff met with DCS to discuss

MOX project schedules and project 

management expectations.

July 26, 2001

The NRC staff met with DCS to 

discuss and clarify NRC's June 21, 2001, 

Request for Additional Information

related to the MOX fuel fabrication 

facility construction application review

(SCOPING - continued from page 2) The

Scoping Summary Report summarizes the

comments and issues raised, discusses

alternatives to be evaluated, and provides an

outline of the draft EIS. NRC, as the lead

agency, will prepare the EIS with the

assistance of Argonne National Laboratory. 

Under the present technical review schedule,

the EIS will be used to support a decision in

2002 by the NRC as to whether to authorize

construction of the proposed MOX FFF. The

current schedule is to publish the draft EIS by

the end of February 2002. Following a public

comment period, the draft EIS will be revised,

and a final EIS will be published by the end of 

September 2002. 

NRC’s Mixed Oxide Fuel Infoweb

Remember: You will find NRC’s MOX website at

www.nrc.gov/NRC/NMSS/MOX/index.html. The

website gives background on nuclear fuel,

history, licensing and environmental information,

meetings, updates related to MOX and power

reactors, and frequently asked questions. Your

input is always appreciated.
Mixed Oxide Xchange - 5 - September 2001

NOTE THESE CHANGES...

Andrew Persinko has returned from France and has

resumed the Project Manager duties for MOX

(301) 415-6522 / AXP1@ nrc.gov

Timothy Johnson, Deputy MOX Project Manager

(301) 415-7299 / TCJ@nrc.gov

 UPDATE YOUR ROLODEX NOW ! ! !

(VISIT - continued from page 1)

a more detailed understanding of the processes at the

MELOX mixed oxide (MOX) fuel fabrication facility

and the spent fuel reprocessing facility located in La

Hague, including a more detailed understanding of

safety aspects associated with the design and operation

of those facilities. 

I worked at the DSIN office in Paris; DSIN regional

offices located in Marseille, Lyon, Caen; at the

MELOX and La Hague facilities; and at the IPSN

offices located in Marcoule and Paris. As part of my

visit, I participated in five DSIN inspections, which

included confinement ventilation and nuclear criticality

safety inspections at MELOX.

I reviewed numerous regulatory documents that

included the annual report of the DSIN, French laws

and regulations, safety reports for MELOX and La

Hague, and IPSN reviews of the MELOX safety

evaluation reports. I discussed technical issues with

DSIN and IPSN personnel, such as deterministic

versus risk-informed approaches to regulation. The

French regulatory approach toward fuel cycle facilities

is deterministic, which is different than the riskinformed approach applied to similar facilities in the

U.S. At MELOX and La Hague, I discussed topics

such as criticality safety, earthquake protection,

radioactive material confinement, fire protection and

operational events that are on the DSIN website

(http://asn.gouv.fr/).

At MELOX, I visited the powder receipt and storage,

powder processing, pellet processing, pellet sintering,

fuel rod assembly, fuel bundle assembly, and utility

areas, including the utility control room. At La Hague,

I visited facilities in UP2-800 and UP3, the

reprocessing facilities for domestic and foreign fuel,

respectively. Since UP2-800 R4 is under construction,

there is no plutonium in the facility. Thus, the visit to

UP2-800 R4 afforded a unique opportunity to visit

areas and view components and internals of

components that will not be accessible after operation

begins. Additionally, I visited the environmental

control room for the entire La Hague site. One of the

functions of the control room is to monitor gaseous

and liquid releases and assure that they are within

allowed limits.

While visiting La Hague, I visited the COGEMA/SGN

facility next to La Hague where there is a full-scale

working model of the electrolyzer that is to be used in

the U.S. MOX facility. The model was constructed for

test purposes.

As a result of my assignment to the DSIN, the NRC

has a more detailed understanding of safety aspects

related to the MELOX MOX fuel fabrication facility

and the spent fuel reprocessing facility located in La

Hague, and a more detailed understanding of the

MELOX and La Hague processes. The design and

operational knowledge gained on this visit will be

beneficial during the NRC staff review of the U.S.

MOX fuel fabrication facility.” 
Mixed Oxide Xchange - 6 - September 2001

Future of Plutonium

Disposition Program

 One question the NRC staff is frequently asked relates to the Bush Administration’s

review of the U.S. nonproliferation programs with Russia. The National Security

Council is continuing to conduct its review and discuss this program with

 Congressional leaders. NRC staff will provide updated information in future Mixed

 Oxide Xchange issues. 

 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Mailing Address

Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards

Division of Fuel Cycle Safety and Safeguards

Attn: Mr. David D. Brown, CHP

Mail Stop T-8A33

Washington, D.C. 20555

Public Document Room

11555 Rockville Pike 

Room #O-1F21 

Rockville, Maryland 20852

Toll Free Telephone: 1- 800- 397- 4209

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.