ML090920296
| ML090920296 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/12/2009 |
| From: | Dan Dorman NRC/NMSS/FCSS |
| To: | Killar F Nuclear Energy Institute |
| Merritt N. Baker, FMB, 301-492-3128 | |
| References | |
| Download: ML090920296 (3) | |
Text
June 12, 2009 Mr. Felix M. Killar, Jr., Senior Director Fuel Supply/Material Licenses Nuclear Generation Division Nuclear Energy Institute 1776 I Street, NW, Suite 400 Washington, DC 20006-3708
Subject:
REPLY TO YOUR FEBRUARY 24, 2009 LETTER REGARDING CHEMICAL EXPOSURES AT FUEL CYCLE FACILITIES LICENSED BY THE U.S.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Dear Mr. Killar:
This letter is in response to your letter dated February 24, 2009, which was written in reply to my November 10, 2008 letter regarding chemical exposures at Fuel Cycle Facilities (FCF) licensed by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).
In your February 24, 2009 letter, you requested that I provide the regulatory basis for the staffs apparent new interpretation of Part 70. After reviewing the issues raised in your letter and associated staff decisions, I have determined that the staffs interpretation and implementation of the Commissions regulations remains unchanged. Specifically, the minimum contents of an Integrated Safety Analysis (ISA) are listed in 10CFR70.65(b). 10CFR70.65(b)(7) requires:
A description of the proposed quantitative standards used to assess the consequences to an individual from acute chemical exposures to licensed material or chemicals produced, from licensed material70.61(b)(4) and (c)(4).
Sections 70.61(b)(4)(ii) and 70.61(c)(4)(ii) apply only to individuals outside the controlled area (i.e., members of the public), while the requirements for workers are in 70.61(b)(4)(i) and 70.61(c)(4)(i). The requirement in 70.65(b)(7) clearly applies to both high consequence events
[70.61(b)(4)] and intermediate consequence events [70.61(c)(4)], and does not distinguish between workers (i) and member of the public (ii). In order to perform a meaningful risk analysis, likelihood standards (highly unlikely and unlikely for high and intermediate consequence scenarios, respectively) are both necessary and required by 70.65(b)(9).
Your letter asserts that the NRC staff implicitly agreed with industrys interpretation (i.e., that the Commissions regulations only require the evaluation of internal chemical exposures) when staff approved past site-specific ISA Summaries. I note for your information that the staffs approval of an ISA Summary is based on the Summarys compliance with the minimum content requirements listed in 70.65(b), conformance with the sites previously-approved ISA plan and methodology, and examination of a sample of risk significant scenarios in an on-site vertical slice review.
The NRC staff has examined several prior approved ISA Summaries, and has determined that contrary to your claims, a number of these summaries address both internal and external chemical exposures, and some make specific reference to hydrofluoric acid spills and/or dermal exposures. For example, licensee ISAs or ISA Summaries have been noted to:
address liquid hydrofluoric acid (HF) spills and include personnel exposure to liquid HF Items Relied On For Safety (IROFSs) include piping integrity and HF detectors, which would alarm due to HF evaporating from the spill. Other scenarios include HF and uranium hexafluoride (UF6) releases, and IROFS include first aid and safety showers; discuss exposures to wet nitric acid and HF; recognize that a large spill of HF could result in serious injury to a worker from both inhalation (respiratory) and contact (skin) exposure; and address large liquid HF spills; associated IROFSs include both HF and Hydrogen detectors.
As these examples demonstrate, the industry and the staff have previously considered chemical exposures to the skin, including exposure to liquid HF, and therefore there was no implicit staff agreement with the interpretation you advocate in your letter.
Your letter requests a basis for an apparent new interpretation of existing Part 70 requirements.
As indicated above, there has been no new or revised interpretation of Part 70, nor has NEI provided specific reference, citation, or evidence to support its contentions otherwise.
In accordance with Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), Section 2.390 of NRCs Rules of Practice, a copy of this letter will be available electronically for public inspection in the NRC Public Document Room and the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS). ADAMS is accessible from the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html (the Public Electronic Reading Room).
Sincerely,
/RA/
Daniel H. Dorman, Director Division of Fuel Cycle Safety and Safeguards Office of Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards
The NRC staff has examined several prior approved ISA Summaries, and has determined that contrary to your claims, a number of these summaries address both internal and external chemical exposures, and some make specific reference to hydrofluoric acid spills and/or dermal exposures. For example, licensee ISAs or ISA Summaries have been noted to :
address liquid hydrofluoric acid (HF) spills and include personnel exposure to liquid HF Items Relied On For Safety (IROFSs) include piping integrity and HF detectors, which would alarm due to HF evaporating from the spill. Other scenarios include HF and uranium hexafluoride (UF6) releases, and IROFS include first aid and safety showers; discuss exposures to wet nitric acid and HF; recognize that a large spill of HF could result in serious injury to a worker from both inhalation (respiratory) and contact (skin) exposure; and address large liquid HF spills; associated IROFSs include both HF and Hydrogen detectors.
As these examples demonstrate, the industry and the staff have previously considered chemical exposures to the skin, including exposure to liquid HF, and therefore there was no implicit staff agreement with the interpretation you advocate in your letter.
Your letter requests a basis for an apparent new interpretation of existing Part 70 requirements. As indicated above, there has been no new or revised interpretation of Part 70, nor has NEI provided specific reference, citation, or evidence to support its contentions otherwise.
In accordance with Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), Section 2.390 of NRCs Rules of Practice, a copy of this letter will be available electronically for public inspection in the NRC Public Document Room and the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS). ADAMS is accessible from the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html (the Public Electronic Reading Room).
Sincerely,
/RA/
Daniel H. Dorman, Director Division of Fuel Cycle Safety and Safeguards Office of Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards DISTRIBUTION:
FMB r/f ML090920296 OFC FMB FMB FMB FFLD FCSS NAME MBaker VWilliams PHabighorst MTschiltz DDorman DATE 04/06/09 04/06/09 04/06/09 05/12/09 6/12/09 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY