ML20147E466

Responds to Commissioner Bradford Comments on SECY-78-378 Re Backfitting & Coverage of Decommissioning in EIS

ML20147E466
Person / Time
Issue date:	09/19/1978
From:	Minogue R NRC OFFICE OF STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT
To:	Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY)
References
NUDOCS 7810160251
Download: ML20147E466 (6)

Text

..

. s.r ,

1. I THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS POOR QUAUTY PAGES SEP 19 1978 i .

l .

K

~

MEMORAND'JM FOR: Samuel J. Chilk Secretary to the Commission THRU: L. V. Gossick, ED0 FROM: Robert B. Minogue, Director Office of Standards Develcpment I

SUBJECT:

RESPONSES TO COPDlISSIDMER BRADFORD'S QUESTIONS ON PART 72 i

! Commissioner Bradford's comments on SECY-78-378 dated August 11, 1978 l contained guestions on the subjects of backfitting and coverage of decommissioning in an environmental impact statement. This memorandum is a response to these questions.

Ovestion relatig to g 72.42 - Backfitting With respect te Sectice 72.42: What will be the criteria used by the staff to make the judgments concerning the substantial additional J protection findings required? Are those criteria different than those I

,used for reactors? If se, why? I Resronse During the briefing on standardization en July 5,1978, the Commission requested the staff to develop criteria on how it would make a judgment regarding the finding of substantial addition to safety as required by Part 50.109. The NRR staff is addressing this problem. An ISFSI is a relatively single facility compared to a reactor and there is no j

innediate need for development of backfitting criteria since it will be some tire before any new ones will be built. We would expect to draw on the criteria developed for reactors, particularly related to '

j passive systems, in making backfitting determinations for an ISFSI.

i j It is anticipated that there will be relatively few ISFSI's compared l r to reactors. Thus, the need for and cost / benefit of developing and l l documenting formal criteria for backfitting, in lieu of case-by-case  !

l determinations, umst be evaluated after more experience is gained. l

! To answer the questions specifically--we do not have specific criteria i fer backfitting for an ISFSI. Since specific criteria have not been

! developed for either reactors or ISFSI's, we do not know whether or nct the same criteria will be applicable to both types of facilities. The I reactor criteria being developed by HRR are expected to be available in gpgg; the near future and we plan to review those criteria to determine applf- l c e!1ity te ISFS!. 40 belien thh would h; e ;;ra cffi;ient use of , ~,

orricegnpower tban ir itiating deve}opment,fromgeratch. It s nould be noteds,,_______

however, tTiat_wq are not_sure there ~is a real need for formalizing s u a me nV CC i fl_C .b,,acij,fj,g 1,n,9,c,rj,t e,rj a_ for ISFSI's.

L l

DATE > _ _ , , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , , _ _ _ ,, _ _ , , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , , _ ______ ,_____ _ _

NRC Form 318 (2 76) NRCM 02040 - o v.s. oo V E RNMEN T # RIN Tf N G O F FIC E: 1976 634_7,2

-- . -. . . ~ . .-._, - . - _ . ._~._ __~ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ . _ _ _ - . - . -

l:-

l Sanuel J. Chilk gg i 9 373 i

_0uestion relation to 5 72.38 - Termination of Licenses j 1

Section 72.38 does not indicate that an environtrental impact statement i

• will be prepared to accompany decomissioning activities. I have the it following question:

a. Under what conditions would the staff prepare an environ-

, mental impact statement to support the decomissioning of l an ISFSI facility?

I

Response

Because of local interest or other reason, an analysis may be made but ,

thestaffdoesnotnowforeseeanyneedtoprepareaformalenvironmentah impact statement for the decomissioning of an ISFSI. This is not N considered a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of \

the human environment. As there is no induced activity in or gross h.'

contamination of ISFSI structures, the decomissioning of a future ISFSI should involve only the removal of minor surface contamination prior to its release for unrestricted use for some other purpcse. There are no D\

complex alternative methods of decomissioning to be e. valuated. - E Original signed by R. G. Smith bec: C. Smith

• Robert B. Minogue, Director

. L. V. Gossick Office of Standards Development

H. R. Denton l ic : C. J. Heltemes, NRR cc: Comm_is5foner Gilinsky

!. R. W. Starostecki, NMSS Commissioner Kennedy

( R. C. DeYoung, DSE Commissioner Ahearn e

! Distribution: Commissioner Bradford l Central Files ' ha f rminsRindrie C

! SD Rdg/ Alpha General Counsel FPSSB Rdg/Subj Policy Evaluation R. B. Minogue

R. G. Smith i

G. A. Arlotto R. M. Bernero i i K. G. Steyer l  ;

R. E. L. Stanford J. Davis H. K. Shapar E D'O. El ',

u c.y 0

, FP 516-1 i < SD2103,-7} / '

OFFlCE >

SDkFPSSB

.....s..L........... ...

SSB S S

.....j..g.l./.

S :E

... ....S D :

SD; R' L ) RELN$nford:vm KGSteyer Eiern ro GA riotto R h RBM nog'u'e L suRNwe > ................... ................... ............ ... / ......... ..................

9//.. ..f./ 7 8........Y/ 9// 9/p/78 9/, /78 9/19/78- 7 8.. ..9/(

I un ................... .. ... . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. . . 9.

......... ...7 . .8. . . . . .

NRC FORM 318 16 771 W U. S. GOVE RNME NT PRINTING OF FICE 1977-237-025 l_ _ , . . . _ . . . ~ .,_._._ . _ _ . . . . _ _ _ -

l.

• o  ;;

• N 8 f,g

• 1. ' ' j

'o 1 0 O . [fg gg UN3TED STATfS OF4'\/

NUCLEAR REGULATogy Co.W.11SSION -

WAShiev07ON. O. C. 20$55 OFPICE a.' TH F, SEC A CTARY CO.'.DfI S S IONER ' S *

. CONSENT CALENDAR ITE! RESPONSE NOTE .

TO: Samuel J. C*nilk Secretary of the Commission FROM: Commissioner Bradford .

S.-

SUBJECT:

SECY-78-378 - LICENSING OF SPENT FUEL STORAGE IM. AN INDE FUEL S,TORAGE INSTALLATION (ISFSI)

^ ~

1 , ,d d /___ C /g '# ffe r Approved

, /.

Disapproved Noted tiithout Obj'ec' tion Com. ants:

• p e n.

An /:XW. bign: .tnr c

- 5'lh)l/m, I i

'y

+i,,6e.

4 4

COMM.ISSIONER BRADFORD'S COMMENTS ON SECY-78-378 I concur in publishing the proposed 10 CFR Part 72 for public comment subject to the following comments:

A. The Statement of Consideration should be revised as L/

follows: .

1. On page 1: The phone number for the staff contact g-should be updated.

On page 3, Item 4: Can the Commission delegate to

[1E. Agreement States the licensing of independent spent gg td',.

fuel storage facilities in view'of the fact that spent f uel contains significant quantities of special nuclear material? If this is not a discretionary decision by the Commission, this section should be revised to state that the reason why this does not cone within the Agreement State programs is that significant quantities of special nuclear material are involved.

3. On page 4, fourth paragraph,'fifth Line: Revise to read as follows:

A "The Commission is considering whether a new seismic siting approach for an ISFSI should be ,f V

adopted whicht recognizes that the simple static nature of an ISFSI makes seismic risk less serious than it is for a' reactor."

k' 41 On the 15th Line: Insert word " seismic" between

" costly" and " site."

5. On the bottom of page 5, next to the last sentence: g-Delete the phrase, "hence a release of the public building air does not pose a potencial hazard to the public."

6. On page 20, paragraph 6, item 6: Add " generated by /'

the facility" to clarify that the waste volumo to A -

be minimined is that that would be generated by the ISFSI.

I

. . , ~ .

• i s .

9 2-7.- Section 72.65 generally addresses population distribution

. sur rounding an ISFSI. The statement of consideration ,f'ql should indicate our present position,.whether or not r l A the- population densities for reactors will be :cceptable l as the population densities for these facilities.  !

B.

• With respect to the detailed regulations, I have the following questions / comments:

1. With respect to Section 72.42: . What will be the "'

criteria used by the staf f to make the judgments See 6d' concerning the substantial additional protection findings required? Are those criteria different than those used for reactors? If so, why?

2. Section 72.32 states that the initial license will "'

be for a 20-year period. There is no discussion on how long a renewal period would be or the number of .

~

renewals that will be granted. I believe the staff should address this in the final rule. -

3. Section 72.38 does not indicate'that an.environmenta]

impact statement will be prepared to accompany decommis-sioning. activities. I have the following question: ,

a. Under what conditions would the' staff' prepare j-an environmental impact statement to support the decommissioning of an ISFSI facility?

With respect to-the question of the nature and extent I

C. '

of the public hearing, I believe that the Commission i

' should. give the following guidance to the staf f:

"The Commission wishes to ensure that the public is provided with an opportunity for an adjudicatory l

heari ng before commencement of construction of any ISFSI. The staff is requested to consider the alternative hearing approaches and recommend rule

• changes for the Commission's consideratioc ehich provide for that opportunity. The statement of -'~\

consideration should. indicate that an opportunity >

for hearings will be provided before is s u i r.g

/ y/ '

a license to construct an ISFSI and' that appropriate ( '

. amendments to our regulations will be issued for public review and comment. " \,  ; i

^ ! r.d 5.c . ,

e

. s D. I believe that the staff'should ensure that the environ- V, mental impact statement which will form.the basis for this regulation is well prepared and adequately cupports these rules and regulations.

e 6

i l

I f

i

.i I

i 1

1 * *.

SU : : y i" "E*0RMOGt FOR: Saruel J. Chilk Secretary to the Concissicn FROP: Fobert m. Finocue, Director Office of Starcards Develerrent StfP4ECT: #ESPCffSES TO C0FMISS10FER EPAPFCDD'S QUESTIONS ON PART 72 Commissioner Bradferd's cossents en SECY-78-278 cated August II,1973 contained questions en the subjects of backfitting and cover 4Ce of decommissioning in an envirennental irpact statecert. This recorar. dun is a response to these questions.

puestion relating to 5 72.42 - Backfitting With respect to Section 72.42: What will be the criteria used by the staff to make the judgments concerning the substantial additional protes '1on findings reevired? Are those criteria different than these used . reactors? If so, why?

Rest, se During the briefing on standardization on July 5,1978, the Cerrcissicn recuested the staff to develop criteria on hcw it would make a juderert regarding the findine of substantial accition to safety as recuired 5y Part 50.109. The NER staff is addressing this probles>. An ISFSI is a relatively simple facility corpared to a reacter and trere is r.n insedi6te need for development cf backfittinc criteria since it will be some tire before any new ones will be built. Vn eculd exeect te draw cn the criteria developed for reacters, prticularly relatec te passive systers, in waking backfitting deter-inati::ns fer an !5F51.

It is anticipated that there will be relatively few ISFSI's cerrareJ to reactors. Thus, the need for and cost / benefit of develecinc ard documenting formal criteria for backfitting, in lieu of case-by-case determinations, must be evaluated after pere experience is Saired.

. To answer the cuestices srecifically-we do not have specific criteria fer backfitting for an ISFSI. Since specific criteria have r:ot recr developed for either reactors or ISFSI's, we do ret reew whether er nr.:

the sare criteria will be arrlicable to Seth types of facilities. T~e reactor criteria being develoced by t'PR are exrectoc to be avai.latle M the near future and we plan to review these criteria to cetereire a oli-cability to ISTSI. We believe this would be a .rcre efficient use of l varpcwcr then initiatirs ceveleprert fren scratch. It shoclo te rett :

+ however, that we are r.ct sure there is a real r.ce: fer fer-alizirt specific backfitti.y criteria fcr ISTSI's.

1 .

. Sasvol J. Chilk SEP 101973_ , j i

i Cuestion relation to 5 -72.38 - Terwination of Licenses Section 72.28 coes not indicate that an environe.cntal impact staterent l, will be prepared to accorpany decomissionine activities. I have the

/ following question:

l a. Under what corditions would the staff prepare an environ-cental ispact staterent to support the decemissicning of an ISFSI facility 7 Besgonse Because of local interest or other reason, an analysis may be made but i

the staff does not new foresee any need to prepare a formal environsental l

impact statement for the decessaissioning of an ISFSI. This is not considered a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. As there is no induced activity in or gross contaminatien of ISFSI structures, the decoseissioning of a future ISFSI l should involve only the removal of minor surface contamination prior to I

its release for unrestricted use for some other purpose. There are no complex alternative methods of decommissioning to be evaluated.

Ortrinal signed by R. G. Smith r

Robert B. Minogue, Directer I Office of Standards Development H. R. Denton, NRR i l bec: C. J. Heltenes, NRR cc: Comissioner Gilinsky j R. W. Starosteckt . NMSS Comissioner Kennedy R. C. DeYoung , DSE _ Comissioner Ahearne Distribution: Comissioner Bradford 1

Central Files General Counsel files L. V. Gossick-50 Rdg/ Alpha PE files

< FPSSB Rdg/Subj R. B. Minogue R. G. Smith

G. A. Arlotto

R. M. Bernem i K. G. Steyer R. E. L. Stanford J. Davis H. K. Shapar EDO rdg.  ;

FP 516-1 SD 2103-78 1 1 i SD:FPSSB $5;FPSSB SD: MSS 50:08 SD:DD SD:DIR l RELS tanford:lh rGSteyer GAArlotto RGSmith RBMinogue RMBernero )

9/19/78 9/ /78 9/ /78 9/ /78 9/ /78 9/ /78 I

. .. . - . - . - - . . - . - . -