ML20058D858

Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR72 Re Notification of Events at Isfsi.Believes General Licenses Should Not Be Required to Use New 10CFR72.75

ML20058D858
Person / Time
Site:	Arkansas Nuclear
Issue date:	11/26/1993
From:	Yelverton J ENTERGY OPERATIONS, INC.
To:	NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY)
References
FRN-58FR48004, FRN-59FR64283, RULE-PR-72 58FR48004-00004, 58FR48004-4, AE37-2-007, AE37-2-6, AE37-2-7, NUDOCS 9312060068
Download: ML20058D858 (4)

Text

>

A 1L----

!b 4

~

W ENTERGY i

, i

!. I 501 M4-86B'3

,,3 9

<_9 n.

Jerry W. Yelverton

.n,.

7

. t x, noen aamao November 26,1993 OCAN119303 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Attention: Docketing and Service Branch

Subject:

Arkansas Nuclear One - Units I and 2 Docket Nos. 50-313 and 50-368 License Nos. DPR-51 and NPF-6 Comments On Proposed Rule: Notification Of Events At Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installations Gentlemen:

In response to your request for comments on the proposed rule for 10CFR72 concerning notification of events at independent spent fuel storage facilities and the monitored retrievable storage installation (58 FR 48004), the attached comments are forwarded for your consideration.

Very truly yours, 97"Y JWYTjd J

Attachment 7

g2OgO68931226 h

72 58FR48004 pyg i

y-

+-w

~ _.

U. S. NRC f

November 26,1993 OCAN119303 Page 2 cc:

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission i

Document Control Desk l

hiail Station PI-137 i

Washington, DC 20555 i

Mr. James L. hiilhoan Regional Administrator

'l U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

'l Region IV 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 400 Arlington, TX 76011-8064 NRC Senior Resident Inspector Arkansas Nuclear One - ANO-1 & 2 Number 1, Nuclear Plant Road Russellville, AR 72801 l

Mr. Roby B. Bevan, Jr.

l NRR Project Manager Region IV/ANO-1 i

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission NRR Mail Stop 13-II-3 One White Flint North 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852 Mr. Thomas W. Alexion NRR Project Manager, Region IV/ANO-2 i

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission i

NRR Mail Stop 13-H-3 i

One White Flint North 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852 ll 1

I e

I 1

i

\\

l

)

1 m-

=+=-

1

Attaciunent to OCANI19303 Page1 of2 Comments on Proposed Rule

1. Generallicensees should not be required to use the new 10CFR72.75. Requiring general licensees to completely utilize 10CFR50.72 by revising 10CFR72.216 to this effect would promote uniformity in reponing requirements between existing site-specific licensees and current and future users of a general license for an independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI) without creating additional burden for the general licensee. An ISFSI used by a general licensee must be located at a reactor site with a eurent Pirt 50 license l

per 10CFR72.210. This is similar to the reason given in the notice for exempting currently existing site-specific ISFSI licensees from use of the new 10CFR72.75 in order to use 10CFR50.72 for reponing.

Additionally, general licensees are currently required to partially utilize 10CFR50.72 (10CFR50.72(b)(2)(vii) only) per 10CFR72.216.

2. The proposed exemption to 10CFR72.75 given in 10CFR72.75(d) for licensees that have license conditions requiring compliance with 10CFR50.72 reporting requirements does not meet the intent of the proposed regulation as given in the notice; specifically the requirements of 10CFR50.72 and 10CFR72.75 are not uniform and therefore the Commission's intent (i.e., promptly reponing significant occurrences for Commission evaluation oflicensee actions to protect the public health and safety or determination whether prompt NRC action is necessary to address generic safety concerns) will not be fbif.iled. Below are examples of reporting differences between existing site-specific licensees and general licensees for ISFSIs that will occur with the presently proposed rule:

A. The requirement in proposed 10CFR72.75(a)(1) is similar to that required by 10CFR50.72(b)(1)(vi), but the proposed requirement has a four hour reponability, whereas the existing one is a one hour reportable event. It is not apparent that such an event at an existing ISFSI with a site-specific license is more serious than one at an i

ISFSI not exempted from the requirements of 10CFR72.75.

B. The same situation as described in A. exists between 10CFR72.75(a)(4) and 10CFR50.72(b)(1)(i)(B).

C. A 10CFR50.72 equivalent to the reponing requirement for 10CFR72.75(a)(6) does not exist. However, it appears that an event reponed under 10CFR72.75(a)(6) could also be reported under 10CFR72.75(a)(3), which in itselfis a redundancy, and this requirement is identical to 10CFR50.72 (b)(2)(vii)(B).

i a

D. The proposed 10CFR72.75(b) is for 24-hour reponable events, no 24-hour reportable i

events exist in 10CFR50.72.

f E. The proposed 24-hour report in 10CFR72.75(b)(2)(i) could appear as a four-hour

~

repon in 10CFR50.72(b)(2)(ii)(C) or (D).

i hel-

m.

Attachment to OCANI19303 i

Page 2 of 2 l

Based on the above, it is clear that the NRC will not achieve uniform reporting from all its ISFSI licensees if the proposed rule is implemented with the exemption for site-speci5c j

licensees. Requiring all ISFSI licensees (site-specific or general) to utilize 10CFR50.72 i

would achieve uniform reporting requirements and consistent NRC review of similar events at ISFSIs.

3. If 10CFR72.216 is to be revised to require compliance with 10CFR72.75, it would be logical to also revise it to reference 10CFR72.74 concerning criticality reporting requirements. Currently 10CFR72.216 does not include a reference to 10CFR72.74 and it is not clear if this reporting requirement also applies to general licensees.

4. The existing 10CFR72.216 (a)(1) and (2) are identical to 10CFR50.72 (b)(2)(vh)(A) and (B) and the proposed 10CFR72.75(a) (2) and(3). This is extremely redundant. It would be better to: 1) revise 10CFR72.216 and the proposed 10CFR72.75 to delete these requirements and reference the additional requirements in 10CFR50.72, or 2) delete these requirements in 10CFR50.72, delete the requirements in 10CFR72.216 and reference the use of 10CFR72.75, and require all ISFSI licensees to utilize 10CFR72.75.

Similarly, the requirements for written reports in 10CFR72.216(b), proposed 10CFR72.75(c), and 10CFR50.72(b)(2)(vii) are redundant. These requirements should be deleted from 10CFR72.216(b) and 10CFR50.72(b)(2)(vii), with the addition of a requirement for all ISFSI licensees to utilize the requirements for written reports included in the proposed 10CFR72.75.

i i

e f

-- ~-

,:m_;a ~: n.,

-