ML20141J217
| ML20141J217 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/29/1996 |
| From: | Jacob Zimmerman NRC |
| To: | Holahan G, Roe J, Varga S NRC |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20141J213 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-97-99 NUDOCS 9705280002 | |
| Download: ML20141J217 (10) | |
Text
^ ' ~
l
, C c \. G R 4g l ! * .
From: Jacob Zimmerman To: SAV, JWR, WNP6.GMH, TWD2.TWP8.EQT, KPD1.KPP2.RWC, ..Q, Date: 10/29/961:36pm
Subject:
70.24 Criticality Monitor Survey h. b' h
' E. Ten d .
As requested by Roy Zimmerman, a survey was conducted to determine the status of h[ i compliance with or exemption from the criticality monitoring requirements of 10 CFR {* g 70.24(a)(1) and (a)(2) for all operating commercial power Tactors. l N.00lh hh Project Managers were asked to review the licenses for their plants and to contact the. t' a licensees, if necessary, to determine if they have criticality monitors that satisfy the 'O . bT I~
requirements of the regulation.
The results of the survey are presented in the attached draft memo. Mr. Zimmerman would appreciate your review and any comments you may have regarding the memo and results of the survey. Please provide comr. ents to me by COB, Tuesday, November 3,1996. ,
if you have any questions, I may be reached at (301) 415-2426.
Thank you for your cooperation, Jake Zimmerman CC: WNP4.RPZ, HNB, JAZ, EGA1 h%
og D 4. b {
% L W s- .
l \? I vQ Y> " h 9705280002 970519 i i
WILLIAMS 97-99 PDR QF
. a 1
l MEMORANDUM TO: Steven A. Varga Jack W. Roe Gary M. IIohhan i Elizabeth Q. Ten Eyck Richard W. Cooper II Ellis W. Merschoff l James Caldwell James E. Dyer FROM: Roy P. Zimmerman
SUBJECT:
ISSUES RELATING TO SURVEY OF LICENSEE COMPLIANCE W.TH REQUIREMENTS OF 10 CFR 70.24, " CRITICALITY ACCIDENT REQUIREMENTS
- A survey was conducted to determine the status of coapliance with or exemption from the criticality monitoring requirements of 10 CFR 70.24(a)(1) and (a)(2) for all operating commercial power reactors Project Managers were asked to review the licenses for their plants and to contact the licensees,if necessary, to determine if they have criticality monitors that satisfy the requirements of the regulation. The results of this survey were placed into one of four categories with respect to conformance with 10 CFR 70.24(a)(1) and (a)(2). De survey results are contained in Attachment 1.
The results of this survey have idendfied two issues. These issues are discussed below and refer to the survey results in Attachment 1.
- 1. Category 3 of the survey identifies those plants that satisfy the requirements of 10 CFR 70.24(a)(1) or (a)(2) which address criticality monitors and their sensitivity requirements. In addition, to satisfy the requirements of 10 CFR 70.24(a)(3), licensees need to have emergency procedures in place for evacuation and perform evacuation drills. However, this aspect of the regniatum was not addressed in the survey. Currently, we do not have sufficient information to determme whether licensee's meet the requirements of 70.24(a)(3). The regions may want to initiate a review of this aspect of compliance with the regulation.
- 2. For those licensees in Category 4 of the survey, except where noted by an asterisk, NRR and the Office of Enforcement have developed a boiler-plate Notice of Violation (NOV), Attachment 2. The regions are requested to include the NOV in an inspection report to be issued prior to the end of the calendar year. Once the violation is issued, the burden will be on the licensee to determine the corrective action to be taken. For those plants with an asterisk, specific enforcement guidance may need to be developed.
- 3. During the August 23,19%, ET meeting, an issue was raised regardi' . t' ;t that exemptions granted under 10 CFit 70.24 for criticality monitors do not normally vc u-235 enrichment limitations. With plauts Foing to longer fuel cycles and power upgrad , .he fuel enrichment in many l
plants is at or approachiq 5 weight percent. This concern has also been raised by Elizabeth Ten
~ . _ _ _ - - - _ _ . ~ _
.. .- - = . .- . _. - -
- s l
[
Eyck, Director, Division of Fuel Cycle Safety and Safeguards. There is apparently very litde data l available regarding the spacing between fuel assemblies required to prevent criticality to support an exemption for enrichments greater than 5 weight percent U-235. It should therefore be determined if higher enrichments represent a criticality concern and, if so, U-235 enrichment restrictions should be considered for any exemption granted in the fature. A policy decision, based ujion the best tecimical ,
I l information currently available, should be Irr.de u determine if any enrichment restrictions are required for future exemptions. Previously. issued exemptions may also have to be revisited if licensees are permitted to exceed 5 weight pt.rcent U-235 enrichment. We recommend that the Reactor Systems Branch coordinate with the Enrichment Branch, Division of Fuel Cycle Safety and Safeguards, NMSS, to determine whether future exemptions require fuel enrichment restrictions.
l l
Attachments: 1. Survey Results 2.10 CFR 70.24(a) Sample NOV cc: P. Miraglia .
A. 'Diadani "
J. Lieberman J. Moore Regional Projects Branch Chiefs NRR Project Directors NRR Project Managers To receive a copy of this document, Indicate in the box: "C" = Copy without attachment / enclosure "E" = Copy with attachment / enclosure "N" = No copy OFFICE LA:PD22:DRPE l E PM:PDII-2 l D:PDll-2 l D:DRPE l ADP l NAME LBerry JZimmerman:cn HBerkow SVarga RZimmerman DATE / /96 / /96 / /96 / /96 / /96 /
DOCUMENT NAME: OFFICIAL RECORD COPY l
l
. . ~ .
Attachment 1 CATEGORIZATION OF RESULTS OF 10 CFR 70.24 EXEMPTION SURVEY
- 1. Plants for which an exemption from 10 CFR 70.24 was issued at the time of issuance of the operating license.
Beaver Valley 2 South Texas 1 and 2 I Braidwood I and 2 Seabrook Byron 2 (9) Vogtle I and 2 Commanche Peak I and 2 Watts Bar i Limerick 2 Waterford 3 :
Nine Mile Point 2 l
- 2. Plants for which an exemption from 10 CFR 70.24 was issued separately after I
the operating license was issued.
Big Rock Point Farley I and 2 (7/30/96)
Haddam Neck (10/11/91)
Hatch I and 2 (7/30/96)
Millstone 1,2, and 3 Perry 1 (9/26/94) ,
San Onofre 2 and 3 (9/28/84,8/9/90) I
- 3. Plants that satisfy the requirements of 10 CFR 70.24(a)(1) and (a)(2). I Compliance with 70.24(a)(3) was not verified at the time of this survey.
i Arkansas 1 McGuire I and 2 Brunswick I and 2 Monticello Byron 1 (9) Nine Mile Point 1 Callaway North Anna 1 and 2 Catawba 1 and 2 Oyster Creek ;
Clinton Peach Bottom 2 and 3 Cooper Palisades D.C. Cook 1 (6) Pilgrim 1 Diablo Canyon 1 and 2 Prairie Island I and 2 Dresden 2 and 3 River Bend Duane Arnold Summer ,
1 Fermi 2 Susquelumna 1 and 2 l James A. Fitzpatrick Surry I and 2 l Fort Calhoun Turkey Point 3 and 4 Hope Creek Vermont Yankee
- Indian Point 2 Washington Nuclear Plant 2 Kewaunee Wolf Creek 1 1.aSalle I and 2
.- . .. . . - - . - - . - -. ~ _ - . . - - - . .-- - -- .
l
[
i Attachment I !
l
- 4. Plants that do not have criticality monitors that satisfy the requirements of 10 CFR 70.24 and for which an exemption has not been granted. :
Arkansas 2 Oconee 1,2 and 3
- l peaver Valley 1 Palo Verde 1,2, and 3 :
Drowns Ferry 1,2 and 3 (1) Point Beach I and 2 pvert Cliffs 1 and 2 v
~
Quad Cities 1 and 2 (5) .
D.C. Cook 2 (6) Robinson 2 _
Crystal River 3 * (2) (Salem 1 and 2 i
Davis-Besse * (4) Sequoyah 1 and 2 * (3)
Shearon Harris 1 * (10) :
f inna V Grand Gulf I St. Lucie 1 and 2 IIndian Point 3 (13) ghree Mile Island 1 (8)
Einierick 1 (7)' Zion 1 and 2 faine Yankee V
- Specific enforcement guidance may need to be developed for these plants.
- 5. Plants in Category 4 that have submitted a request or are considering requesting an exemption from 10 CFR 70.24.
Arkansas 2 (11)
Browns Ferry 1,2, and 3 (11)
Calvert Cliffs 1 and 2 (4)
D.C. Cook 2 (4)
Crystal River 3 (11)
Ginna (11)
Grand Gulf 1 (4)
Maine Yankee (11)
Oconee 1,2, and 3 (11)
Palo Verde 1,2, and 3 (11)
Point Beach I and 2 (11)
Robinson (11)-
St. Lucie 1 and 2 (11) -
- 6. Plants in Category 3 that satisfy the requirements of 10 CFR 70.24 and have
- or are planning to request an exemption under the provisions of 10 CFR f 70.24(d), (12)
l l
1 Arkansas I (1I)
Callaway (11)
D.C. Cook 1 (4)
Fort Calhoun (11)
Nonh Anna 1 and 2(II)
Surry I and 2 (11)
Wolf Creek 1 (4) v 9
4
2 . _ _. . . _ _ _ _-. _ _ _ . _ _ _ .. _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _._ _.
l
,. . i Attachment i PLANT-SPECIFIC FOOTNOTES ;
l
)
l (1) By letter dated August 31,1987, TVA submitted a request for an exemption from I' l the requirements of 10 CFR 70.24 for Browns Ferry 1,2, and 3. ' By letter dated l
May 11,1988 (which was concurred in by OGC), the staff stated that it considers l the previously issued exemptions to 10 CFR 70.24 incorporated into the Part 70 materials licenses to still be in effect even though the specific provisions of these licenses were not incorporated into the Part 50 operating licenses. It should be noted that the staff took this position even though the Part 70 licenses had specified expiration dates (a fixed date or upon conversion to an operating license). Since l- that time, OGC has reversed itself and stated that if these exemptions are tied to i
the specific expiration dates of the Part 70 materials licenses then these exemptions are no longer in effect. Also since the new fuel at Browns Ferry is transferred in air directly from the shipping cask to the spent fuel pool, criticality monitors are still required under Section 70.24(a). (Note: If the entire transfer is performed
! under water, monitors are not required). On the above bases Browns Ferry has
! been categorized as requiring an exemption for the purpose of this survey.
(2) The licensee, by letter dated May 3,1996, requested clarification on the need for i this exempdon based on the staff's May 11,1988, letter to TVA, which stated that l the previously issued exemptions granted under the Part 70 materials licenses are still in effect. *the staff has not responded to this request.
(3) TVA requested guidance from NRC on August 7,1981, regarding whether ;
i Sequoyah required an exemption to 10 CFR 70.24. The staff has not responded to this request. ,
l (4) Exemption submitted.
, (5) The licensee has a criticality monitor that is located outside the New Fuel Storage .
l Vault (monitor separated from fuel by a concrete wall). The licensee is performing i
analysis to determine if this monitor satisfies the requirements of 10 CFR 70.24(a)(2). The plant has been categorized as requiring an exemption because it is doubtful this monitor will satisfy sensitivity requirements of the regulation based on j its location. In addition, the licensee has stated it does not have emergency procedures for evacuation or perform drills.
(6) D.C. Cook Unit I was licensed prior to 1974 and Unit 2 was licensed after 1974.
Both units have a common new fuel storage area. Unit I meets the requirements of 10
- CFR 10 CFR 70.24(a)(2). This raises a question regarding whether or not Unit 2 has to satisfy the requirements of 10 CFR 70.24(a)(1) or is grandfathered because of Unit I and l
l only has to satisfy 10 CFR 70.24(a)(2). This survey assumes the latter.
_. . . _ _ ~ .
Attachment 1 o
I i
(7) Limerick 1 and 2 share a common storage area for new fuel (underwater in the
! spent fuel pool). Limerick 2 was granted an exemption when the operating license
- was issued; Limerick I was not. l l l (8) Does not always meet the sensitivity requirements of 10 CFR 70.24(a)(2). The licensee stated there are times when the background radiation level interferes with the 5mr/hr to 20mr/hr lower sensitivity limit of the regulation.
(9) . Byron 1 and 2 have a common new fuel storage area. Byron 1 has criticality monitors that satisfy 70.24(a)(1); Byron 2 has an exemption.
(10) The Shearon Harris operating license states that an exemption from 10 CFR 70.24, which was granted under the SNM license, is continued. The Shearon Harris SNM l
license (SNM 1939) states that "The license is hereby exempted from the provisions of 10 CFR 70.24 insofar as this section applies to the material held under this license." Since the exempdon is tied to the provisions of the SNM license, which limits the licensee to 1900 kg of U-235 in uranium enriched to no more than 3.15 ' weight percent and the fuel the licensee is currently using exceeds this enrichment, a new exemption from 10 CFR 70.24 is required. Because of the higher enrichments, it is also possible that the weight of U-235 specified in the SNM license may be exceeded. This plant has been categorized as requiring an exemption from 10 CFR 70.24.
(11) Planning or considering submitting an exemption.
(12) ne licensee satisfies the regulation and is requesting an exemption because they no longer want to maintain emergency procedures for evacuadon or perform drills.
However, to eliminate this requirement, the licensee has to request an exemption in whole from 10 CFR 70.24.
(13) The licensee cannot find any record of requesting or of being granted an exemption. The licensee's area monitors probably meet the requirements of the j regulations, but do not appear to have emergency procedures for evacuation in place or perform drills. On this basis, the licensee is categorized as requiring an exemption. ]
, j l'
i i
1 I- l
,e .
l Attachment 2 1
NOTICE OF VIOLATION
[ Utility Name] [ Docket No(s).]
[ Plant Name, Unit (s)] [ License No(s).] 1 l
1 l
As a result of a review recently conducted by the NRC on [ Month Day, Year], a violation of NRC requirements was identified. In accordance with the " General Statement of Policy I and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions," NUREG-1600, the violation is listed below:
Part 70.24(a) of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, requires, in part, each licensee authorized to possess . =cial nuclear material (SNM) of sufficient quantity, to maintain a radiation monitoring system in each area where SNM is handled or stored that will alarm if accidental criticality occurs. Furthermore, applicable emergency procedures must be maintained to ensure personnel are withdrawn to an ;
area of safety when the alarm sounds.
Contrary to the above, as of [ Month Day, Year], the licensee never installed a radiation monitoring system in the [ Plant, Unit (s)] new fuel storage areas capable of alarming should an accidental cridcality occur. [If applicable, the following l may also be stated: Furthermore, the licensee's initial exemptions from the requirements of 10 CFR 70.24(a) (contained as part of its original NRC Materials License for possessing SNM) expired when the [ Plant, Unit (s)]
construction permit [(s)] were converted to operating licenses in [ Year]. At that time, the licensee failed to install a radiation monitoring system and implement e
+ appropriate emergency _ procedures, or renew its exemptions. Since then, new fuel storage areas have been used to handle and store new fuel assemblies on a regular basis prior to each unit refueling outage.].
This is a Severity Level IV violation (Supplement I). j Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, [ Utility Name), is hereby required to submit ,
a written statement or explanation to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ATTN: i Document Control Desk, Washington, DC 20555, with a copy to the Regional l Administrator, Region [XX], and a copy to the NRC Resident Inspector, [ Plant Name),
within 30 days of the date of the letter transmitting this Notice of Violation (Notice). This reply should be clearly marked as a " Reply to a Notice of Violation" and should include I for each violation:
l (1) the reason for the violation, or, if contested, the basis for disputing the violation; (2) ;
I the corrective steps that will be taken and the results achieved; (3) the corrective steps that will be taken to avoid further violations; and (4) the date when full compliance will be achieved.
i l
{
i
- L i t
t p Attachment 2 i
l Your response may reference or include previous docketed corresponden , if the ;
l correspondence adeqmtely addresses the required response. If an adequate reply is not received within the the specified in this Notice, an Order or a Demand for Information may be issued as to why the license should not be modified, suspended, or revoked, or why such other action as may be proper should not be r taken. Where good cause is shown, consideration will be given to extending the response i time.
Because your response will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room (PDR), to the extent possible, it should not include any personal privacy, proprietary, or safeguards
- information so that it can be placed in the PDR without redaction. If personal privacy or l proprietary information is rwemry to provide an acceptable response, then please provide l a bracketed copy of your redacted copy of your response that deletes such information. If you request withholding of such material, you gigs 1 specifically identify the portions of your response that you seek to have withheld and provide in detail the bases for your claim l' of withholding (e.g., explain why the disclosure of information will create an unwarranted l l
invasion of personal privacy or provide the information required by 10 CFR 2.790(b) to i support a request for withholding confidential commercial or financial information). If !
safeguards information is necemry to provide an acceptable response, please provide the level of protection described in 10 CRR 73.21.
Dated at this day of 19 l
l i
l i
i l
i
{
i l
j 1
i 1
}
l i . - -
,