ML17289A589
| ML17289A589 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 09/19/2017 |
| From: | Nicholas Difrancesco Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research |
| To: | Bonanno J Nuclear Energy Institute |
| Cupidon L | |
| References | |
| Download: ML17289A589 (3) | |
Text
From: Difrancesco, Nicholas Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2017 5:11 PM To: BONANNO, Jerry
Subject:
Thanks! RE: Response to Question Posed in Sept. 14 CRGR Meeting
- Jerry, Much appreciate the timely and comprehensive response.
- Regards, Nick Technical Assistant Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 301-415-1115 From: BONANNO, Jerry [1]
Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2017 4:39 PM To: Difrancesco, Nicholas <Nicholas.DiFrancesco@nrc.gov>
Cc: Cupidon, Les <Les.Cupidon@nrc.gov>; CAMERON, Greg <grc@nei.org>; EARLS, Chris <cee@nei.org>;
Hackett, Edwin <Edwin.Hackett@nrc.gov>
Subject:
[External_Sender] Response to Question Posed in Sept. 14 CRGR Meeting Nick; During last weeks public meeting with the Committee to Review Generic Requirements on NRC Regulatory Issue Summary 2017-#### Disposition of Information Related to the Time Period that Safety-Related Structures, Systems, or Components are Installed, a member of the Committee posed the following question: Does the industry agree that the addressees for the RIS should be expanded to include All holders and applicants for an independent spent fuel storage installation license under 10 CFR Part 72, Licensing Requirements for the Independent Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel, High-Level Radioactive Waste, and Reactor-Related Greater than Class C Waste?
The industry does not believe that including such licensees is necessary, nor will their inclusion further the intent of the RIS, which is to reiterate existing requirements related to dispositioning information pertaining to the capability of safety-related structures, systems, and components (SSCs) to perform their safety functions in nuclear power plants and to reinforce[] the obligations of nuclear power plant licensees to maintain safety-related SSCs in accordance with 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B . . . and the licensees operability/functionality determination process (RIS, at pg. 1 of 8).
The discussion provided in the RIS indicates that the ongoing inspection and operating experience reviews that gave rise to the RIS were focused on issues unfolding at operating nuclear power reactors (see Information Notice 2012-06 and IOEB Analysis Team Study on Component Aging - Insights from Inspection Findings and Reportable Events). This operating plant experience is separate and distinct from the aging management experience and programs relevant to ISFSIs. Further, ISFSI aging management programs have recently been reviewed and the results of those reviews are reflected in Revision 1 to NUREG-1927. The quality assurance and aging management requirements applicable to Part 72 specific and general licensees are governed by Part 72, the terms of specific licenses issued pursuant to Part 72, and relevant Certificates of Compliance, as applicable. It seems clear, however, that the appropriate focus of the RIS is on the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50. Specifically, while not exhaustive, the Selected Regulations section of the RIS points to the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, which are directly applicable to Part 50 and Part 52 licensees. Thus, issuance of the RIS to Part 72 licensees is unnecessary and is likely to create confusion, rather than provide additional clarity.
The staff proposes to increase the scope of Addressees to include all holders of and applicants for an ISFSI license under 10 CFR Part 72 in response to a public comment, which, in turn, relied upon the analysis provided in the NRCs Continued Storage Rule (see 79 Fed.Reg.
56,238; Sept. 19, 2014). Specifically, the comment asserted that since the NRC analyzed on-site storage of spent fuel for long periods of time (including an indefinite storage scenario) in the analysis supporting the Continued Storage Rule, the RIS should be distributed to Part 72 licensees managing spent fuel in dry cask storage systems. The staff agreed with the comment without further explanation, and added Part 72 licensees as addressees.
But the reasoning provided in the comment conflates the analysis supporting the Continued Storage Rule with the requirements applicable to operating nuclear power plants and ISFSIs.
The Continued Storage Rule codifies the NRCs conclusions regarding the environmental impacts of long-term spent fuel storage for the purposes of satisfying the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). These conclusions, and the supporting analysis, are used to ensure that the environmental impacts of certain NRC licensing activities are adequately articulated and considered. As explained in the preamble to the rule, the findings of the analysis associated with the Continued Storage Rule were codified in order to preserve the efficiency of the NRCs licensing processes (see 79 Fed.Reg. 56,239). Although the Continued Storage Rule is an important part of the Commissions licensing process, it is not appropriate to use the assumptions underlying the NEPA analysis that supports the rule to determine the applicability or relevance of the agencys current operating requirements.
Nuclear power plants and ISFSIs are licensed for defined periods of time and the operating requirements applicable to those facilities are defined in the NRCs legally binding requirements (regulations, orders, licenses, etc.), not in the associated NEPA analyses. Thus, we do not believe that the comment provided an adequate basis for modifying the draft RIS.
Given the discussion provided above, holders and applicants for an ISFSI license under 10 CFR Part 72 -whether specific or general - should not be included as addressees for this RIS.
Finally, an associated question was raised regarding industrys views on whether it is appropriate to address the RIS to [a]ll permanently shut down power reactors with spent fuel in spent fuel pools. The industry does not object to these licensees being included as Addressees. That said, the specific requirements applicable to such licensees will, to a large extent, need to be determined on a case-by-case basis. For example, a licensee that has submitted the certifications required under 10 CFR 50.82(a) may make changes to its approved Quality Assurance program pursuant to the change-control provisions provided in 10 CFR 50.54(a).
Please feel free to contact me if there are any questions regarding this response.
Thanks again.
Jerry Bonanno l Associate General Counsel 1201 F Street, NW, Suite 1100 l Washington, DC 20004 P: 202.739.8147 M: 202.468.8082 nei.org This electronic message transmission contains information from the Nuclear Energy Institute, Inc. The information is intended solely for the use of the addressee and its use by any other person is not authorized. If you are not the intended recipient, you have received this communication in error, and any review, use, disclosure, copying or distribution of the contents of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this electronic transmission in error, please notify the sender immediately by telephone or by electronic mail and permanently delete the original message. IRS Circular 230 disclosure: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS and other taxing authorities, we inform you that any tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties that may be imposed on any taxpayer or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.
Sent through www.intermedia.com