ML103370565
| ML103370565 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 04/30/2011 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards |
| To: | |
| O'Donnell, Edward, RES/DE/RGB 251-7455 | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML103360486 | List: |
| References | |
| DG-3039 RG-3.067, Rev 1 | |
| Download: ML103370565 (3) | |
Text
Resolution of Comments Received on Draft Regulatory Guide DG-3039, Standard Format and Content for Emergency Plans for Fuel Cycle and Material Facilities Section of Comment Resolution DG-3039 General The Regulatory Guide should reference applicable chapters of The staff disagrees. The guide applies to a wide range of NUREG-1520, Standard Review Plan for the Review of a License facilities. There are several Standard Review Plans available for Application for a Fuel Cycle Facility. these facilities. The guide is intended for readers preparing an emergency plan. The SRPs are intended for readers preparing a (GE Hitachi comment 1) license application. Adding numerous references throughout the guide for preparing many different license applications will not help readers prepare an emergency plan.
A. On page 2, RIS 2005-02 is referenced for guidance on the process for The staff disagrees. RIS 2005-02 was addressed to both reactor Introduction making emergency plan changes; however, this RIS specifically and nonreactor facilities. Although most of the discussion is applies to 10 CFR Part 50 facilities. Consider either of the following related to reactor sites, the concerns can be adapted and applied options for revising the guide: (1) revise the RIS to include applicable to any facility maintaining an emergency plan. In addition, the first regulations and guidance for affected facilities, (2) provide specific page of every regulatory guide contains a statement that the guide reference applicable to RG 3.67 facilities, or (3) revise the sentence to is not a substitute for the regulations, and compliance with the indicate that RIS 2005-02 is for general guidance only and RG 3.67 guide is not required.
affected facilities would not be expected to implement all of the guidance in RIS 2005-02.
(GE Hitachi comment 2)
B. Format The new criterion for marking and control of sensitive information The staff disagrees. Guidance on withholding emergency would require that the emergency plan be reviewed by security response information has been available since 2005. The guide officials for the purpose of marking it as security-related. Should references RIS 2005-31 which provides guidance on information security officials determine that specific sections be withheld under 10 to be withheld from the public. In addition, sensitive information CFR 2.390, a general description emergency plan that is releasable to may be shared with parties that have a need to know. Offsite the public will need to be developed. This provision is new and not response organizations have a need to know, and should continue required by regulation. It adds complexity to the document to have access to the emergency plan. The NRC recognizes that configuration control and maintenance process and inhibits free flow of controlling sensitive information adds complexity to document information to offsite response agencies; therefore, we suggest control. Unfortunately, the complexity is necessary in the current deletion of this criterion. Also, specific guidance is needed to assist threat environment.
licensee in determining what portions of the emergency plan are security-related information and thus must be withheld from public
Section of Comment Resolution DG-3039 disclosure.
(NEI comment 2) 1.2 It is impractical for some licensees to include a list of all hazardous The staff agrees. It is impractical to list thousands of chemicals chemicals used at the site. A radiochemical manufacturer may have used in multiple locations. A listing of every small vial would not thousands of chemicals, some used in multiple locations. A better be useful for emergency situations. The following statement was approach would be to list only those hazardous chemicals that have added to the guide:
quantities and locations that could significantly affect the ability to The list may be limited to larger quantities likely to impact safely respond in an emergency.
emergency response efforts (i.e., bulk storage containers, etc.).
(CORAR comment) 2.1 The guide references NUREG-1513 for integrated safety analysis The staff disagrees. If a release at a site and a release a mile guidance. This section should also reference NUREG-1520, which away are both classified the same, there is significant potential for also provides guidance regarding performance of an integrated safety confusion and erroneous decisions. A release on a public road analysis (ISA). differs significantly from a release in a licensed facility and it should have a different classification. Therefore, the NRC is not (GE Hitachi Comment 3) revising the regulatory guide as proposed by the commenter.
Licensees and applicants should rely on the regulatory guide. The NRC intends to clarify the discrepancy in NUREG-1520 highlighted by this comment.
3.1 The guide segregates emergency classifications for onsite The staff disagrees. If a release at a site and a release a mile emergencies versus those required for offsite response (i.e., away are both classified the same, there is significant potential for transportation accidents). NUREG-1520, Section 8.4.3.1.4(3), states confusion and erroneous decisions. The basis for the statement in that transportation accidents within one mile of the facility should be NUREG-1520 is unclear, but we believe the statements added to classified under the emergency plan. The final regulatory guide the regulatory guide are the most appropriate. A release on a should be consistent with NUREG-1520. public road differs significantly from a release in a licensed facility and it should have a different classification.
(GE Hitachi comment 4) 5.1 A new paragraph addresses hostile action response and references IN The staff notes that IN 2009-19 was issued to both reactor and 2009-19 which references NEI 06-04. Both the IN and NEI documents non-reactor licensees. Although the lessons learned came from specifically apply to 10 CFR Part 50 facilities, and the guidance is not reactor drills, the lessons can be used by any licensee conducting clear on what is required of non-Part 50 facilities. The final guide a drill involving a hostile action. The following statement was should clarify the intent of this guidance for non-Part 50 facilities. added to the final guide:
(GE Hitachi comment 6) This notice discusses lessons learned during hostile action based drills at reactor sites. A non-reactor site can expect similar problems and should address these issues in its plan.
Section of Comment Resolution DG-3039 7.3 The section states that scenarios should be developed for accidents The size of the emergency response organization and the range postulated in the plan including hostile action based events. It does of accident scenarios can vary significantly between facilities. This not clearly state the periodicity for hostile action based exercises. guidance applies to a wide range of activities. A training frequency appropriate for one facility may be inappropriate for (NEI comment 1) another facility. The final guide was clarified by adding the following statement:
It is expected that internal drills will be conducted more often (at least annually) than full-scale exercises. Each applicant should establish a drill frequency that will maintain proficiency in its emergency response organization.