ML20035F374
| ML20035F374 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/19/1993 |
| From: | Curtiss J NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9304210211 | |
| Download: ML20035F374 (5) | |
Text
.
NOTATION V0T RELEASED TO THE PDR RESPONSE SHEET
- ,,,,cy,,,,,,,,,TI 5,$,,,,;
T0:
SAMUEL J. CHILK, SECRETARY OF THE COINISSION FR0f4:
C0144ISSIONER CURTISS
SUBJECT:
SECY-93-006 - PROPOSED N4ENDMENTS TO 10 CFR PART 72 TO ESTABLISH THE EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS LICENSING REGULATIONS FOR INDEPENDENT SPENT FUEL STORAGE FACILITIES (ISFSI) AND MONITORED RETRIEVABLE STORAGE FACILITIES 04RS)
X/with APPROVED comments DISAPPROVED ABSTAIN NoT PARTICIPATING REQUEST DISCUSSION C0144ENTS:
My comments on the proposed rulemaking are attached.
210041 Mm?\\-
SIGNATURE RELEASE VOTE
/X /
March 19, 1993 DATE WITHHOLD VOTE
/
/
ENTERED ON "AS" YES x
No 9304210211 930319
$$RES E PDR
I
/
in terms I
planning with provisions for of f site emergency response k
thorities and k
i of coordination and communication with offs te au i
the public.
e the Commission is proposing As a result of the above evaluation, i
ts for Part 72 the emergency planning licensing requ remen dified in 10 that licensees be similar to those requirements already co Nonetheless, the 70 licensees.
CFR Part 70.22 for other Part ii in th'e emergency Commission wishes to establish unique prov s ons facilities versus MRS facilities.mtRCCNc1 P planning requirements for ISFSIpr.c, fn ces A l'c nwim L ncio 502 u!wnNCl' The Commission Ad basiefor4E decisica-is-not-aNs a'Iticte h1A f AT ONCE cr ct(U nt fer-a-speotn 6 y n 94 F(IM FLMr TD Tiif EN nRE potent-ial--d es es-res ulting-f-ro m-a eo id on tel-rel eases-Rw,R. cme N TS PCSTuu'TO MD FRO Gi?
l zed for commwea Pcwcwapws TkTir T NiTCwidon+ c-becauss ai-l' accidents that hav g
f ne of or MRS h w resulted in similar offsite doses.
v wcvCP either an ISFSI uences of analysis of potential onsite and offsite conseq tion of an ISFSI is The accidental releases associated with the opera This evaluation shows that the maximum contained in NUREG-1140.
idental dose to a member of the public offsite due to an acc exceed 1 rem effective release of radioactive materials would not i
Action Guides equivalent which is within the EPA Protect ve soluble uranium (due to chemical dose or an intake of 2 milligrams of toxicity).
involving an ISFSI Thus the consequences of worst-case accidents h
mpared located on a reactor site would be inconsequential w en co Therefore, current i
to those involving the reactor itself.
SI's.
An ISFSI reactor emergency plans cover all at-reactor ISF ill need an is to be licensed for a stand-alone operation w that 12
T.
\\l with the proposed
/
accordance h
d in cmergency plan establishe NU' REG-1140 concluded that t e in this rulemaking. involving an ISFSI has requirement ident f ty.
postulated worst-case acc the public health and sa e insignificant consequences to to be imposed on ISFSI i
t the proposed requiremen sand do not mandate forma ffsite Therefore, licensees reflect this fact,emergency plans.
components to their onsite analysis of potential ducted an d
similarly, the Commission has con f accidental releases associate and offsite consequences oThe analysis is contained in onsite MRS.
the maximum dose tio a with the operation of an This evaluation shows that of NUREG-1092 ite due to an accidental release effective member of the public offswould likely not exceed i rem tion Guides radioactive materials within the EPA Protective Ac to chemical equivalent which is s of soluble uranium (dueo 6euivE dose ced or an intake of 2 milligram Mason-f # requir g enhan Comnwo Nonetheless, thej A F1CtLIT%
toxicity).
an MRS is_.strongly-1 AT SycH 4
at uch.-asA i
offsite emergency plann ng perat-lend could be performed s ACTthnE5 g)Hsce j
C OP Yt1C bRGBbEE. Scof L L mbers of eens+dspations -about-what-okaging for storage of large nu OECMSE tal (MTHM))
y pppined TDthe handling and repac (15,000 Metric Tons Heavy Me al individual fuel bundles inspection, and transfer of sever Mtf otteniuks inAV o9L5o Etacmfrs.
olidation which includee the receipt, sNVtu/E5 ical disposal thousand transport casks,jcasks for subsequent geolog
) Due tm the uncertainties in the des of the stored fuel into qinn exists) the after interim storage (no formal application of the MRS, gency and operation t to raise the level of emer d
Commission believes it pru en m F A(E N 13
.lraseRT Ftz
otetrud er 60 MRS Mi>t dr d_
planning to include some of fsite preparedness shouldjan accident Rard
// exce$b' those analyzed in NUREGs 1140 and 1092.
J
/
the emergency plan requirements for the MRS include an 4hereft codified within that section of the proposed offsite component, Thelevelofthreattothepublichealthandsafetyfrom)
BECMSc rule.
a cd to that from an ISFSI y-not4e-the-sa M e MRS who utetwD At this time,j t4wr-MRS design has not been f4nclisc.p A rive '-
The MRS may be a large industrial f acility.
Tho operatlon wouM-inelude JI' E s J e f f ED w tM9oL(~
faci-14ti4MM the loading, unloading, and decontaminating a large number of spent fuel shipping containers arriving by' both ytX 9
It could also include facilities to disassemble IO truck and rail.
the fuel bundles and consolidate that fuel into special and facilities to handle solidified storage / transport containers, Such f acilities would require the equipment high-level vaste.
necessary to treat low-and high-level waste generated by the above operations. b ased stric 17 on 5 REG-d o, an offs e
I warran ed.
plan for the - JIS may not 6mponent tr.e emergen -
However the potenti scale and nat re of this pe of operation l
ma
.andate the ility to achiev an increas level o l
that should inc1 de an of fsit compone onse, on To achieve this goal, the proposed MRS emergency plan The intent of T
requirements are modeled af ter 10 CFR 50.47 (d).
this section was to mandate a minimum level of offsite response capability during initial reactor licensing and low power This same minimum level of response is considered operations.
NS
'IT ts ALSo fcwSLE, stok/EVER, VOL M appropriate to MRS operations.
PfrCittTV Tu 3ERVC ffJrtRRIL OfEplhT)ttap LamstED sCLELV TD ftCCE 14 Sttknf AND LATYR 7AM'S&!!V4 00MbEl t>f g)MafELSPL(OrJTPIAIEk S tit fPUCS% ~BV Vit4lUtn Tbld
/
this level of i
Because much of the language needed to ach eve l
dified in 10 CFR Part 50, offsite protection has already been co posed emergency plan similar language is included within the pro
[ 7 2. 32 (b) (15) (1-vi) ).
requirements for an MRS, l
f facilities this The Commission notes that for both types oide adequate safety rulemaking is not required in order to prov n a comparison of the f
l and may not be justified based sole y o to the increase in public costs of implementing these regulationsRather, the Co health and safety.
h intangible justified in terms of safety enhancement such as t eh t local autho i
benefit of being able to assure the publ c t a l
ident so that they may will be notified in the event of an acc The NRC feels that such preparedness take appropriate actions.and Con ss sn-ur t hen-is line with - the w sT4-b reprocant-e-a prudent st+p-which-shouM-e
-a
- S NRC's philosophy of defense-in-depth.
h t because the FULL Nonetheless, the commission wishes to note t a DAT WILL 8e (cNvucnDat an MRS are yet undefined, th CF DATURE Aub OTEUToperations and processesj ponent to is requested to comment as to whether an offsite com nable, appropriate or emergency preparedness at an Ims is reaso premature at this time.
l ed proposed It is the Commission's intention that the enc os rcede the proposed Part 72 Emergency Planning requirements supe d on May 27, 1986, (51 FR Emergency Planning requirements publishe the 1986 proposed amendments are hereby 19106); therefore, withdrawn.
15
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ - _ - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _