ML20035F388
| ML20035F388 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/31/1993 |
| From: | Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| To: | Taylor J NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 9304210225 | |
| Download: ML20035F388 (11) | |
Text
000000000000000000000000 RELFJsSED TO THE PDR 8 *f Got 5
e 8[} p, E ( k.
UNITED STATES e
NUCLEAR REGULATi)R f COMMISSION.
,70 7
Q
/
=
s
.,u-e yg ash 1N GTON. D C. 20555 h&IG d'"
[
e e s e n s e e s e e e e e e e e {b e e s e
in ff,5 g %<
y March 31, 1993 OFFICE OF THE SECRET ARY MEMORANDUM FOR:
James M. Taylor Executive Director for Ope \\ ions t
FROM:
Samuel J.
Chilk, Secretary l
SUBJECT:
SECY-93-006 - PROPOSED AMEN ENTS TO 10 CFR PART 72 TO ESTABLISH THE EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS LICENSING REGULATIONS FOR INDEPENDENT SPENT FUEL STORAGE FACILITIES (ISFSI) AND MONITORED RETRIEVABLE STORAGE FACILITIES (MRS)
The Commission (with all Commissioners agreeing) has approved publication of the notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Reaister subject to the EDO's response to Commissioner Rogers (questions I and 3) dated March 2, 1993, and the changes indicated in the attachment.
Additionally, an area of possible confusion may exist concerning an ISFSI at the site of a power reactor which is no longer operating.
One approach to clarify the situation might be to modify the proposed rule to read:
72.32 (a)
"Each applicant for an ISFSI (that is not located on the site of a nuclear power reactor, or that is located on the site of a nuclear power reactor which does not have an operating license)
The staff should modify the proposed rule to provide clarification of this item.
(EDO)
(SECY Suspense:
5/7/93)
Attachment:
As stated s
210044 SECY NOTE:
THIS SRM, SECY-93-006, AND THE VOTE SHEETS OF ALL COMMISSIONERS WILL BE MADE PUBLICLY AVAILABLE 10 WORKING DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS SRM 9304210225 930331
. DR 10CFR PT9.7 PDR
\\
[
1 h
I 1
-l k
cc:
The Chairman i
Commissioner Rogers' Commissioner Curtiss Commissioner Remick Commissioner de Planque OGC
. i OIG Office Directors, Regions, ACRS, ACNW (via E-Mail)
-i OP, SDBU/CR, ASLBP (via FAX) l i
i I
i l
1 I
r l
~
' i i
b i
r I
l e
i planning with provisions for offsite emergency response in terms of coordination and communication with offsite authorities and the public.
As a result of the above evaluation, the Commission is proposing that the emergency planning licensing requirements for Part 72 licensees be similar to those requirements already codified in 10 CFR Part 70.22 for other Part 70 licensees.
Nonetheless, the Commission wishes to establish unique provisions in the emergency planning requirements for ISFSI facilities versus MRS facilities.
noHdpdes it p&ntid neid b enhuv2d meegeny pkmnInt) ogiccetrds ppdak The Commission'c bacic for thic decicicf ic not bac__ totally c" LA 4e de eAMet rage d optidiens iuhich ouy It (cnducted d an hWS dat.19,f. he OcemiMien x-potential _cccc reculting frcr accidental relcaccc for a cpectrumt atkAegkd ts nd 40 didt, ptdded and 3
3 c.
a_cidentc becauce c1ILaccidents that have been analyzed for oculd either an ISFSI or MRS 4mvet resulted2 in similar offsite doses.
4 The analysis of potential onsite and offsite consequences of accidental releases associated with the operation of an ISFSI is contained in NUREG-1140.
This evaluation shows that the maximum dose to a member of the public offsite due to an accidental release of radioactive materials would not exceed 1 rem effective dose equivalent which is within the EPA Protective Action Guides or an intake of 2 milligrams of soluble uranium (due to chemical toxicity).
r Thus the consequences of worst-case accidents involving an ISFSI located on a reactor site would be inconsequential when compared to those involving the reactor itself.
Therefore, current reactor emergency plans cover all at-reactor ISFSI's.
An ISFSI that is to be licensed for a stand-alone operation will need an 12 c
4 emergency plan established in accordance with the proposed requirement in this rulemaking.
NUREG-1140 concluded that the postulated worst-case accident involving an ISFSI has insignificant consequences to the public health and safety.
Therefore, the proposed requirements to be imposed on ISFSI licensees reflect this fact, and do not mandate formal offsite components to their onsite emergency plans.
Similarly, the Commission has conducted an analysis of potential onsite and offsite consequences of accidental releases associated with the operation of an MRS.
The analysis is contained in i
This evaluation shows that the maximum dose to a member of the public offsite due to an accidental release of radioactive materials would likely not exceed 1 rem effective dose equivalent which is within the EPA Protective Action Guides or an intake of 2 milligrams of soluble uranium (due to chemical Gw,m:5$1cn bdiue3 W atercfride,ic ret ce.
toxicity).
Nonetheless, the reccer for requiring; enhanced g
hcose. e4 4he. broader scep ei adIWMt4 offsite emergency planning at an MRS ic ctrongly influcnccd by*-
3 which d su.ch a. Odlitf.
gconcideretienc ebout hat Operatiencicould be performed cucP cce la addi+ien it i
Athe handling and repackaging for storage of large numbers of individual fuel bundles (15,000 Metric Tons Heavy Metal (MTHM))
leddyts which includcotthe receipt, inspection, and transfer of several g
YnR.S etereckas fu{ aho entevapa55 Oc.,
thousand transport casks,g cc ::cl cc the peccibl;; consolidation of the stored fuel into casks for subsequent geological disposal Giftw 3
after interin storage.g Duc tq.the uncertainties in the design and operation of the MRS, (no formal application exists) the Commission believes it prudent to raise the level of emergency I IuSEtr Fmi I
ThsE \\4 l_
-J
e OfernNn d an MR6 pWT planning to include some of fsite preparedness should^ese accident risks in estess cf hCAuSC OC exceedlthose analyzed in NUREGs 1140 and 1092.
g Therefere-the emergency plan requirements for the MRS include an offsite component, codified within that section of the proposed rule.
+he level of threat to the public health and safety from tvA I Utted r
the MRS)guhcn conpored tct that from an ISFSIJmcy not be the ccret.
A tut 5tkc. icd.
At this time,phe MRS design has not been finclinedig The MRS may be a large industrial facility A hc operation.culd includet eppFCd -to handle.
g.ccilitic fed the loading, unloading, and decontaminating a large number of spent fuel shipping containers arriving by both truck and rail.
It could also include facilities to disassemble the fuel bundles and consolidate that fuel into special storage / transport containers, and facilities to handle solidified high-level waste.
Such facilities would require the equipment necessary to treat low-and high-level waste generated by the above operations.
d strictly on NUREG-1140, an offsite
~
'I S ponent to the emergency plan fo e MRS nay no de warranted.
httAo
/the pot.en /
Howe r,
tial scale n
nature of s type of op ation Me %.
/
mandate /the ability,t achieve an i creased leve-of m
g (response, one that should include an offsite co.. onent.
A WF6h8E 7.h is also ge+5IMC,hcWe4tt, Or an 14Q.6 biGy 40 serd. prlfrardy A4
/
ope,4ien, limRed sclely 40 atttfing, 54ceinq And Wer 4rg-sh!phng A Iqe.
'" j To achieve this goal, the propose 8 MRS emergency plan requirements are modeled after 10 CFR 50.47(d).
The intent of this section was to nandate a minimum level of offsite response capability during initial reactor licensing and low power operations.
This same minimum level of response is considered appropriate to MRS operations.
m nignh-d mivma.1 tcA4Amte g6itm5 14 (acs) eM 4yp Mo5eA W s4s\\a. wec.
s
Because much of the language needed to achieve this level of offsite protection has already been codified in 10 CFR Part 50, similar language is included within the proposed emergency plan requirements for an MRS, [72. 32 (b) (15) (1-vi) ].
The Commission notes that for both types of facilities this rulemaking is not required in order to provide adequate safety and may not be justified based solely on a comparison of the costs of implementing these regulations to the increase in public health and safety.
Rather, the Commission believes that it is t
justified in terms of safety enhancement such as the intangible benefit of being able to assure the public that local authorities will be notified in the event of an accident so that they may take appropriate actions.
The NRC feels that such preparedness Awd censisteA+ uAe
.15 --- ^ - ^- + - " p rud e nty "" " ^ ^" ' A
'^'"^#'"'"
the NRC's philosophy of defense-in-depth.
Nonetheless, the Commission wishes to note that because the f.dlodarcande4htek ht tis 4 ht. tadMied 3 operations and processes at an MRS are yet undefined, the public g
is requested to comment as to whether an offsite component to emergency preparedness at an MRS is reasonable, appropriate or premature at this time.
It is the Commission's intention that the enclosed proposed i
Part72EmergencyPlanningrequirementssupef[edetheproposed Emergency Planning requirements published on May 27, 1986, (51 FR 19106); therefore, the 1986 proposed amendments are hereby withdrawn.
15
ibL (4)
Detection of accidents.
Identification,of means db 3
r etection of approachin? an accident condition.
(5)
Mitigation of consequences.
A brief description of the means of mitigating the consequences of each type of accident, including those provided to protect workers onsite, and a description of the program for maintaining the equipment.
(6)
Assessment of releases.
A brief description of the methods and equipment to assess releases of radioactive materials.
i (7)
Responsibilities.
A brief description of the responsibilities of licensee personnel should an accident occur, including identification of personnel responsible for promptly notifying i
offsite response organizations and the NRC; also responsibilities for developing, maintaining, and updating the plan.
I (8)
Notification and coordination.
A commitment to and a brief description of the means to promptly notify offsite response organizations and request offsite assistance, including medical assistance for the treatment of contaminated injured onsite workers when appropriate.
A control point must be 22
117 (a ).,
141(h), Pub. L.97-425, 96 Stat. 2202, 2203, 2204, 2222, 1
2244 (42 U.S.C.
10101, 10137(a), 10161(h), Subparts K and L are j
+
[
also issued under sec. 133, 96 Stat. 2230 (42 U.S.C. 10153) and 218(a), 96 Stat. 2252 (42 U.S.C.
10198).
i 2.
In S 72.32 paragraphs (a) and (b) are revised to read as follows:
-l S 72.32 EMERGENCY PLAN i
(a)
Each application for an ISFSI (that is not located on j
the site of a nuclear power reactor) that is licensed
~
under this part must be accompanied by an Emergency l
Plan that includes the following information:
(1)
Facility description.
A brief description of the i
licensee's facility and area near the site.
i i
(2)
Types of accidents.
An identification of each type of radioactive materials accident for which i
protective actions may be needed.
[
I (3)
Classification of accidents.
A classification i
system for classifying accidents up to an alert.
j
-OCOrgOncy.D j
l 1
i t
21 e
4
(11) Safe Condition.
A brief description of the means of restoring the facility to a safe condition after an accident.
(12) Exercises.
Provisions for conducting semiannual communications checks with offsite response organizations and biennial onsite exercises to test response to simulated emergencies.
Semiannual communications checks with offsite response organizations must include the check and update of all necessary telephone numbers.
( Radiological / Health Physics, Medical, and Fire
)
( Drill should be conducted semiannually.
The licensee shall invite offsite response organizations to participate in the biennial exercises.
I Participation of offsite response organizations in biennial exercises although recommended is not r muired.
Exercises must use scenarios not known nost exercise participants.
The licensee shall critique each exercise using individuals not having direct implementation responsibility for the plan.
Critiques of exercises must evaluate the appropriateness of the plan, energency procedures, facilities, equipment, training of personnel, and overall effectiveness of the 24
organizations capable of augmenting the planned onsite response have been identified.
(16) Arrangements made for providing information to the j
public.
(b)
Each application for an MRS that is licensed under this part must be accompanied by an Emergency Plan that includes the following information:
(1)
Facility description.
A brief description of the licensee's facility and area near the site.
(2)
Types of accidents.
An identification of each type of radioactive materials accident for which protective actions may be needed.
(3)
Classification of accidents.
A classification system for classifying accidents as alerts or site area emergencies.2 (4)
Detection of accidents.
Identification of the 05 neansg et detecting cf approachir.gtan accident f
condition.
i 8
Site Ares emergency means events ear occur, are in progress, or have occurred that could I
lead to significant release of radicactive materlat and that could regaire a response by I
offsite response organizations to protect persons offsite.
)
26
\\
i
of 1986, Title III, Public Law 99-499, if applicable to the applicant's activities at the proposed place of use of the special nuclear material.
i (14) The licensee shall allow the offsite response i
organizations expected to respond in case of an accident 60 days to comment on the licensee's j
emergency plan before submitting it to NRC.
The licensee shall provide any comments received
{
within the 60 days to the NRC with the emergency l
plan.
I t
(15) Review of applicant's emergency plans shall s
include the following for potential offsite i
assistance:
(i)
Arrangements for requesting and effectively i
using offsite assistance on site have been made, arrangements to accommodate State and l
t local staff at the licensee's near-site f
emergency facility have-been made, and other organizations capable of augmenting the i
i planned onsite response have been identified.
i f
L l
(ii) Provisions exist for prompt commungations among principal response organizations to i
30 1
1
,