ML20141J436
| ML20141J436 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 08/14/1997 |
| From: | Ross D Committee To Review Generic Requirements |
| To: | Callan L NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9708200052 | |
| Download: ML20141J436 (7) | |
Text
. _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ .
- . p ro g, p* k UNITED STATES g j
'E NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, o.c. 30666 4 001
'y..... August. 14, 1997 MEMORANDUM TO: L. Joseph Callan Executive Director for Operations FROM: Denwood F. Ross, Jr., Chairman
. Committee to Review Generic Requir en
SUBJECT:
ASSESSMENT OF THE ACTIVITIES OF THE
' COMMITTEE TO REVIEW GENERIC REQUIREMENTS
- 1997 CRGR ANNUAL REPORT TO THE COMMISSION u Attached for your approval and transmittal to the Commission are proposals for future CRGR review of nuclear materials issues selected as part of the one year continuation of the trial program,in response to the Staff Requirements Memorandum (SRM), "SECY 97-052 -
Committee to Review Generic Requirements (CRGR) Scope of Review and Periodic Review Activities," dated April 18,1997.
On August 5,1997, at the CRGR Meeting No. 309, the Committee was briefed by the NMSS staff on NMSS's proposal for future CRGR review items. The staff presented to the Committee the scope and schedule of the ongoing activities, and identified various areas for the future CRGR review. No inspection guidance for nuclear materials fachitl6s were identified for CRGR review. The CRGR commented on the topics proposed by the staff where the CRGR review could add value. The Committee believed that CRGR review will be most beneficialin certain focused areas. Topics such as backfitting procedures for th'e gaseous diffusion plants, or icsues related to spent fuel storage and transportation and those conceming large fuel cycle facilities could benefit from CRGR review. Among the staff's proposal, revisions to 10 CFR 70,10 CFR 76, and spent fuel storage and transportation issues seem likely candidates where value could be added by CRGR review.
The Committee also agreed that the CRGR Charter should be revised or amen %d to reflect the one year continuation of review of nuclear materials issues on a trial basis. Additionally, the questions asked in the preparation of the "CRGR Review Package" would need to be revised to accommodate nuclear inaterials proposals. Furthermore, the Committee noted that there are certain inherent differences in the risks associated with the operation of the power reactors and those related to the operation of nuclear material facilities, in particular, in addition to (or absent) radiological risks, the nuclear materials facilities also need consideration from the standpoint of chemical hazards. However, the members noted the inherent differences in tne established regulatory framework for the nuclear power reactors gg' 3
and nuclear materials facilities. They recognized the need for establishing some ground rules to ensure consistency and uniformity in the review nuclear materials topics, if the pIgOf ;
CRGR were to continue in this role.
9700200052 970s14 PDR- REVOP NROCROR g4 /T)-9 C[k HEETING309 PDR.
fh '-
h -ddM 9 11e Willq!$1! .
NPL PCR gm FrW ley DdM. -CN A FH/b T j
- .. - _ - - - . - - - . - _ - . . _ - - - - - . - . - _ - - . - ~ - - . _
.N The CRGR also agreed that such development efforts would be resource intensive, and perhaps the Committee should first gain some experience in the review of nuclear materials issues. Based on that experience, the Committee could (1) assess the value added by the CRGR review; (2) evaluate whether to continue review of nuclear materials toples, and make appropriate recommendation to the EDO as well as include this evaluation in the l 1998 CRGR Annual Report to the Commission; and (3) identify generic review criteria for i development, if a decision is mada to continue CRGR review of nuclear materials topics, and make recommendations to the EDO.
1 If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at 415 7472. l cc: Ashok C. Thadani, DEDE Frank J. Miraglia, NRR
- William F. Kane, NMSS
[ James E. Dyer, RIV >
I z ;
t p
n h
1 a
e f
4 4
5 1
.; .~ [,_,..,.._ . ._._..am. - . , . , , _ _ , . . . . . . . . _ . . , . . . . . . , , . . . . . . , . . , , . - , .
b 2-The CRGR also agreed that such development efforts would be resource intensive, and perhaps the Committee should first gain some experience in the review of nuclear materials issues. Based on that experience, the Committee could (1) assess the value added by the CRGR review; (2) evaluate whether to continue review of nuclear materials topics, and l make appropriate recommendation to the EDO as well as include this evaluation in the 1998 CRGR Annual Report to the Commission; and (3) identify generic review criteria for development,if a decision is made to continue CRGR review of nuclear materials topics, and make recommendations to the EDO.
l If you have any questic,ns, please feel free to call me at 415 7472.
l cc: Ashok C. Thadani, DEDE Frank J. Miraglia, NRR William F. Kane, NMSS Joseph A. Murphy, RES Dennis C. Dambly, OGC James E. Dyer, RIV Distribution:
e J File Center /NUDOCSL CRGR SF CRGR CF JMitchell RTripathi DISK / DOCUMENT NAME: S:\CRGR\CRGRMTRL.EDO To recdve a copy of this document, indicate in the bo[d* = Copy w/o attachment. *E" = Copy w/ attachment, *N* = No copy '
OFC- CRGR p, D:Apk NAME RTripathi Y _DFRoh, DATE &' / /4 /97 hfh7 l OFFICIAL RECORD COPY a
puay n
k E UNITED STATFS NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION f WASHINGTON, D.C. 90666-0001
% ,. . . . . ,o MEMORANDUM TO: Chairman Jackson Commissioners Dieus Commissioner Diaz Commissioner McGaffigan FROM: L. Joseph Callan Executive Director for Operations
SUBJECT:
FUTURE ACTIVITIES OF THE COMMITTEE TO REVIEW i
GENERIC REQUIREMENTS RELATED TO NUCLEAR MATERIALS ISSUES - REPORT TO THE COMMISSION i
This report contains proposals for future CRGR review of nuclear materials issues selected as part of the one year continuation of the trial program,in response to the Staff Requirements Memorandum (SRM), "SECY-97 052 Committee to Review Generic Requirements (CRGR)- Scope of Review and Periodic Review Activities," dated April 18, 1997.
BACKGROUND:
In response to an earlier staff proposal, a June 15,1994, staff requirements memorandum (SRM) directed the staff not to reduce the scope of the CRGR Charter, but to consider and to recommend a course of action for enlarging the scope of CRGR review to include proposed generic requirements in the nuclear materials area. On February 14,1995, at CRGR Meeting No. 269, NMSS identified several nuclear materials areas involving radiation / chemical safety / hazards considerations and criticality concerns that might benefit from CRGR review. NMSS also indicated that the Committee's perspective and advice on structurel, electrical, and mecnanical aspects of the regulation of spent fuel and waste storage / transportation operations, and low-enrichment uranium fuel fabrication facilities (from the system, rather than process, perspective) could be helpful. The Committee evaluated this option and agreed to address, on a one year trial basis, selected nuclear materials issues identified by the NMSS Director or by the EDO, and to make appropriate recommendations to the EDO regarding continuation of the CRGR review of nuclear materials issues. This aspect of the expanded scope of CRGR review was included in the CRGR Charter revision, which was approved by the Commission on Marci. 23,1996.
The SRM, dated August 21,1996, regarding COMSECY.96 028 - Strategic Assessment issue Paper: Independent Oversight (DSI 19), directed that (1) the CRGR should be retained and its scope be expanded to include the NMSS activities; (2) possible inclusion of reactor inspection guidance within the scope of the CRGR should be considered; (3) the CRGR, as for other independent committees, should periodically determine the value added to the agency's mission by its activities, including a self assessment; and (4) the CRGR, as for other independent committees, should provide a set of criteria, for Commission
%r'
The Co,mmissioners 2-consideration, under which the effectiveness of the Committee would be evaluated in the future, and the Committee should then periodically review itself against these critaria and provide the results of its evaluation to the Commission.
As a follow up, on February 27,1997, the staff submitted SECY 97 052 to seek the i Commission approval of proposels relating to the scope of review of the CRGR and periodic l evaluation of its activities. On April 18,1997, the Commission approved the staff l recommendation for a one year continuation of the trial program for CRGR review of selected NMSS items.
In the past few years, the CRGR reviewed selected nuclear materials topics, in 1995, at the Commission's directive, the Committee reviewed revisions to 10 CFR 70, " Domestic Licensing of Special Nuclear Material." In June 1996, at the CRGR meeting No. 296, the Committee reviewed and endorsed a proposed Bulle:in 96 04, " Chemical, Galvanic and Other Reactions in Spent Fuel Storage and Transportation Casks," sponsored by NMSS.
Recently, at the CRGR Meeting No. 309, the CRGR reviewed the proposed final Revision 3 of Regulatory Guide 5.44," Perimeter Intrusion Alarm Systems."
In the past few years, the CRGR members visited various nuclear fuel cycle facilities. In 1995, the CRGR members and the staff visited the Westinghouse Fuel Fabrication Facility in Columbia, South Carolina; in 1996, the Siemens Fuel Corporation facility in Richland, Washington; and in July 1997, the Allied Signal Corporation in Metropolis, Illinois, and the United States Enrichment Corporation's Gaseous Diffusion Plant in Paducah, Kentucky.
These visits afforded a very candid dialogue between the CRGR members and the licensees on the effectiveness of the nuclear regulatory backfitting process.
DISCUSSION:
On August 5,1997, at the CRGR Meeting No. 309, the Committee was briefed by the NMSS staff on NMSS's proposal for future CRGR review items. The staff of the Division of Waste Management, the Division of industrial & Medical Nuclear Safety, the Division of Fuel Cycle Safety & Safeguards, and the Spent Fuel Projects Office presented to the Committee the scope and schedule of the ongoing activities, and identified various areas for the future CRGR review. Attachment 1 contains a list of nuclear materials items for possible future CRGR review. No inspection guidance for nuclear materials facilities were identified for CRGR review.
The ChGR commented on the topics proposed by the staff where the CRGR review could add value. The Committee believed that CRGR review will be most beneficial in certain focused areas. Topics such as backfitting procedures for the gaseous diffusion plants, or l issues related to spent fuel storage and transportation, and those concerning large fuel cycle facilities could benefit from CRGR review. Among the staff's proposal, revisions to 10 CFR 70,10 CFR 76, and spent fuel storage and transportation issues seem likely candidates where value could be added by CRGR review.
s The Commissioners 3-The Committee also agreed that the CRGit Charter should bc revised or amended to reflect the one year continuation of review of nuclear materials issues on a trial basis.
Additionally, the questions asked in the preparation of the "CRGR Review Package" would need to be revised to accommodate nuclear materials proposals.
Furthermore, the Committee noted that there are certain inherent differences in the risks associated with the operation of the power reactors and those related to the operation of nuclear material f acilities, in particular, in addition to (or absent) radiological risks, the l
nuclear materials f acilities also need consideration from the standpoint of chemical hazards.
However, the members noted the inherent differences in the established regulatory framework for the nuclear power reactors and nuclear materials f acilities. They recognized the need for establishing some ground rules to ensure consistency and uniformity in the review nuclear materials topics, if the CRGR were to continue in this role.
The CRGR alto agreed that such development efforts would be resource intensive, and that perhaps the Committee should first gain some experience in the review of nuclear materials lasues. Based on that experience the Committee could (1) assess the value added by the CRGR review; (2) evaluate whether to continue review of nuclear materials topics, and make appropriate recommendation to the EDO as well as include this evaluation in the 1998 CRGR Annual Report to the Commission; and (3) identify generic review criteria for development, if a decision is made to continue CRGR review of nuclear materials topics, and make recommendations to the EDO.
The CRGR will make plans accordingly.
Attachment:
List of Nuclear Materials issues to be Reviewed by the CRGR cc w/ett.:
SECY OGC OCA OPA CFO CIO OIP ACRS
List of Nuclear Materials Topics Proposed for Possible CRGR Review in the Coming Months l 1. Revisions to 10 CFR 70 l 2. Revisions to 10 CFR 40 (possibly)
- 3. Backfitting policy for the gaseous diffusion plants
- 4. Spent fuel storage and transportation issues
- 5. "Cornpliance backfit" type bulletins under development ATTACHMENT
.