ML19332E177

Provides NRC Views on Proposed Legislation Re Licensing of U Enrichment Facilities,Per 891012 Request.Nrc Concurs W/View That Regulation of U Enrichment Plants More Appropriate Under 10CFR40 & 70 than 10CFR50

ML19332E177
Person / Time
Issue date:	11/13/1989
From:	Carr K NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
To:	Jeanne Johnston SENATE, ENERGY & NATURAL RESOURCES
Shared Package
ML19332E178	List: ML19332E177 ML19332E182
References
CCS, NUDOCS 8912060332
Download: ML19332E177 (2)

Text

._

m i'

m y

lQ J a.

q '

. x+'

4[fte). ;t %qensui '. f r C M 1 l, j.

>. T.

' UNITED STATES '

Q'[ ( ?g ' ' m. Y

- NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISS!bN h[ ~ E\\h

[ (

WASHINGTON D.C 20555

November 13,.1989 l

c

-]. 4j CHAIRMAN _ e i

4

.a*

s L,3 iThe Honorab h J.-Bennett Jo.inston ; Chairman u

!Committeeson Energy;and-Natural Resources i A United States Senate 1ashington,.D.C. 20510

~

s

Dear Mr. Chairman:

iln response;to your>0ct'ober.12, 1989 request, I am-providing

~

the ' Nuclear' Regulatory Commission's (NRC's): views on legis-lation you.may-propose ~uith! respect to the~ licensing of-if uranium enrichment f acilities.

.in particular you solicit the Commission'sLview as-to whether the proposed: legislation will

.~ accomplish.your intent of providing for licensing of uranium enrichment--facilities under. Parts-40 and'70-"ather. than under Part:50 of Title 10- of the Code of' Federal Regulations.

The1NRC: agrees with your view that it would be more appropriate-to regulate-uranium-enrichment plants under c10. C.F.R'.: Parts 40 and~ 70. than under 10 C.F.R. Part 50.

The primary safety hazard in an enrichment plant is that'posediby (the chemical ^ toxicity of' uranium hexafluoride and the resultantih'ydrogen fluoride formed from the reaction of' uranium-h'exafluoride with moisture in air in the event of aa accidental release.

The NRCihassfor-many years regulated other chemical processing

~

c

-facilities, which also use uranium hexafluoride, under 10LC.F.R. Parts 40 and-70.

NRC requirements in 10 C.F.R. Part 50..have been: promulgated primarily for licensing of nuclear reactors, which are entirely different from uranium enrichment facilities in concept, complexity, and degree of risk.

Subsections (a), (b),.(c), and (d) of the proposed legislation Lare identical to Sec. 114(d)(1)-(4) of S. 83 passed by)the Senate on July-20, 1989.

Under proposed subsection (a, a

. uranium enrichment facility will be removed from the statutory definition of " production facility" and therefore from k

. licensing under Part 50.

Such a facility will then be clicersed and regulated undte Subpart L of Part 2 and Parts 40 and 70Lsince'.the' facility will possess source material and

.special nuclear material.

The NRC believes that existing

' regulations in Parts 2, 40, and 70 will serve as an adequate

-regulatory framework for licensing enrichment 'acilitios.

M[d,Nkbbli bbb 8912060332 epi 133 0OA PDR COMMS NRCC

. CORRESPONDENCE PDC I

~

1

=j :,

,k

&^

a i

p

-u&

J, <g. " L.

• 1 m

~~

lf.c 3

Sibsection-(e) ofLthe proposed legislation was not included in

{

S. 83. LSection 274c(L) of the Atomic Fnergy Act prevents the Commission 1from entering into an agreement with a state under which the, Commission would relinquish its authority over the l construction'or operation of.any production or utilization facility.. The proposed legislation preserves. - -is-prohibition

.with respect to. uranium enrichment facilities.

The effect of

.subsectionE(e)Ewill be to prevent a state which enters into an-agreementufor:the regulation'of sou.ce material 1from sharing a

.regulatoryEauthority with the Commission over a uranium

' enrichment facility.

The NRC believes that the potential significance of a' uranium enrichment facility to the Nation's common defense and-security-and the desirability of avoiding dual regulation makes this provision appropriate.

We appreciate ~the opportunity to comment on this legislative proposal.

Sincerely, W.

Kenneth M. Carr cc:

The Honorable James A. McClure l

->m-

--- - --.