NUCLEAR CONTROL INSTITUTE INSTITUTE FOR ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL
RESEARCH
27 March 2000
Chief
Rules and Directives Branch
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Washington, DC 20555-0001
To Whom It May Concern:
We are pleased to submit our comments
on the "Draft Standard Review Plan (SRP) for the Review of an Application for a Mixed
Oxide (MOX) Fuel Fabrication Facility" (Draft NUREG-1718, January 2000):
1. A requirement for a
MOX fuel fabrication facility quality assurance program plan is needed in the SRP.
The recent revelations of extensive
quality control data falsification and defective fuel production at a British Nuclear
Fuels Limited (BNFL) MOX fuel fabrication plant at Sellafield have underscored the
critical role of MOX quality assurance (QA) programs in providing public and utility
confidence in the safety of MOX fuel use. The
BNFL scandal resulted in the indefinite postponement of MOX fuel use in Japanese
light-water reactors (LWRs), the unscheduled shutdown of a reactor in Germany to remove
BNFL MOX fuel, and cancellation of fuel reprocessing contracts with BNFL by Germany,
Sweden and Switzerland. It has also led to a
dispute between Japan and the United Kingdom over the fate of eight BNFL MOX fuel
assemblies that Japan no longer wants. The
Chief Executive Officer of BNFL was forced to resign, and the existence of the company is
in jeopardy.
With this fiasco in mind, we are deeply
concerned that the Draft Standard Review Plan (DSRP) issued by the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) has only a couple of passing mentions of quality assurance as it relates
to MOX fuel fabrication facility operation and none to the quality of MOX fuel that would
be produced. The DSRP fails to require that
the applicant for a license to construct and operate a MOX fuel fabrication facility
submit a plan for a quality assurance (QA) program for the MOX fuel produced by the plant. The DSRP restricts its discussion of QA to items
relied on for the safe operation of the plant, and does not address measures to assure the
quality of the MOX fuel produced by the plant.
To help avoid the kinds of problems
that were experienced at Sellafield, and to strengthen public confidence in the MOX
fabrication process, NRC should require that MOX fuel QA procedures be incorporated into
the design of the MOX plant at the outset. Moreover,
the proposed procedures should be issued for review by the public, so that it can provide
its views on the stringency of the QA procedures that should be applied to MOX fuel
production in the United States.
The specification of the procedures for
MOX fuel production QA should be in accordance with Appendix F of the DSRP,
"Checklist for Evaluating Acceptance of Quality Assurance Elements." These elements should include a complete list of
the fuel parameters that will be checked during inspection, the sampling plans for each of
these parameters and the techniques that will be used to measure these parameters. Also, the organizational structure, lines of
responsibility for fuel QA, and guidance for audits and corrective actions should be
specified.
Ordinarily, a nuclear power plant
licensee would be responsible for guaranteeing the quality of the fuel that it uses. However, due to the unique consortium structure of
the U.S. MOX program, the nuclear plant licensee and the MOX fuel fabricator are part of
the same corporate entity. Therefore, it is
entirely appropriate that MOX fuel QA issues be addressed at this preliminary stage in the
program.
2. The SRP should
require that applicants provide
operating data from similar facilities to NRC and the public.
Section 1.0 of the DSRP specifies the
institutional information that an applicant must provide in order to qualify for a license
to build and operate a MOX fabrication plant. However,
the DSRP does not require that the applicant provide operating data pertaining to other
MOX fabrication plants that it owns and/or operates in foreign countries. Such data would be highly relevant for an
assessment of whether the applicant is competent to build and safely operate a similar
plant in the United States.
Section 1.2.5.2 requires the primary
reviewer to make an evaluation to determine the acceptability of foreign ownership
and control. Since the parent of
company of one of the consortium members, Cogema, is about 80 percent owned by the French
government, a detailed determination of the acceptability of foreign ownership and control
is required, all the more so as the MOX plant, if built, will involve the processing of
weapon-grade plutonium. Therefore, it is
imperative from technical, safety, environmental, security and regulatory standpoints that
the SRP explicitly require that all operating data relevant to the applicant's ability to
build and safely operate a MOX plant be submitted to the NRC and released to the public
(with the exception, of course, of Safeguards Information).
This data should include historic routine and accidental gaseous and aqueous
emissions, occupational radiation exposures, waste inventories and standard errors of
inventory differences, for each MOX plant with which the applicant (including any parent
companies) is affiliated.
In addition, NRC should also require
that all historical MOX fuel quality assurance data be submitted and released for public
review. (In the case of BNFL, audits of
publicly released quality control data by Japanese independent experts revealed
irregularities in MOX pellet lots that BNFL, Japanese utilities and Japanese government
agencies had previously claimed had met specifications).
This requirement is all the more
urgent given the recent revelations of irregularities in quality control data recording
procedures at Cogema's MOX fuel fabrication plant at Cadarache, which has affected the
fuel for at least one nuclear power plant in Germany (Siemens press release, March 24,
2000).
These two elements must be essential
components of any license application review for the construction and operation of a MOX
fuel fabrication facility in the United States. Otherwise,
it will be impossible for the U.S. public to have confidence in the safety of any
NRC-licensed MOX plant or the fuel it produces.
Sincerely,
Edwin Lyman
Arjun Makhijani
Scientific Director
President
Nuclear Control Institute[1]
Institute for Energy and
Environmental Research[2]
What's New
Plutonium Disposition Page Home
Page