ML20205K296
| ML20205K296 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 04/08/1999 |
| From: | Travers W NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | Powers D Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| References | |
| ACRS-R-1805, SECY-99-054-C, SECY-99-54-C, NUDOCS 9904130095 | |
| Download: ML20205K296 (5) | |
Text
_
j
.gs>t Mits
[
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 2056Hm1
%,*****/
April 8, 1999 Dr. Dana A. Powers, Chairman Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
. Washington, D.C. 20555-0001
SUBJECT:
SECY-99-054," PLANS FOR FINAL RULE - REVISIONS TO 10 CFR PARTS 50, 52 AND 72 REQUIREMENTS CONCERNING CHANGES, TESTS, AND EXPERIMENTS"
Dear Dr. Powers:
In a letter dated March 22,1999, on the above subject, the Committee stated that it supported i
completion of the proposed rulemaking to provide stability to the 10 CFR 50.59 process. The l
staff plans to brief the Committee at the full Committee ineeting in May 1999 on the final rule l
package, including the recommended rule language and Statement of Considerations concerning design basis limits. The staff will work to achieve implementation as soon as guidance is sufficiently developed. We appreciate the support of the Committee in completing this rulemaking.
In the March 22 letter, the Committee also stated that it supported changes to align Parts 71 and 72 and said that the staff should continue its work to extend these changes to an international level. The staff agrees with the ACRS's recommendation to continue work to ensure that any changes in 10 CFR Part 71 that allow "50.59-type" changes for packaging and transportation of radioactive material do not create incompatibility problems with international transportation regulations. To avoid such incompatibilities, the staff chose, after consultation with the Department of Transportation (DOT), to limit the current effort to shipping casks used only in the domestic shipment of spent fuel. The staff believes that this option will provide flexibility for designers, fabricators, and users of dual purpose (transportation and storage) casks in the near future, while avoiding potential compatibility issues and delays involved in revising international regulations.
i
\\
p.N
~ m V
ciq-s, Q,q c
59i gkb 9904130095 990400 PDR SECY t Lgg@'99-054 C PDR e
- j r
o Dr. Dana Powers While the initial NRC effort is limited to domestic spent fuel casks, the staff is actively discussing with DOT proposals to extend "50.59-type" changes to all radioactive material packages through a possible revision to the intemational Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) l
. transportation regulations. NRC and DOT have agreed to present this issue as a US position at the upcoming meeting of TRANSSAC (IAEA's Transport Safety Standards Advisory Committee) in May 1999.
Sincerely, OM W--
William D. Travers Executive Director for Operations cc Chairman Jackson
{
Commissioner Dieus Commissioner Diaz Commissioner McGaffigan Commissioner Merrifield SECY l
5 Dr. Dana Powers While the initial NRC effort is limited to domestic spent fuel casks, the staff is actively discussing with DOT proposals to extend "50.59-type" changes to all radioactive material packages through a possible revision to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) transportation regulations. NRC and DOT have agreed to present this issue as a US position at the upcoming meeting of TRANSSAC (IAEA's Transport Safety Standards Advisory Committee) in May 1999.
Sincerely, O@el #*d W m D.Travess William D. Travers Executive Director for Operations j
cc: Chairman Jackson Commissioner Dieus Commissioner Diaz Commissioner McGaffigan j
Commissioner Merrifield SECY DISTRIBUTION: See attached page DOCUMENT NAME: G:\\5059\\g990156 *See previous concurrence OFFICE RGEB: DRIP
- TECH. EDITOR
- SC:RGEB: DRIP
- C 3GEB*
NAME EMcKenna:sw RSanders FAkstulewicz CCarpenter DATE 04/01/99 04/05/99 04/01/99 04/02/99 OFFICE D: DRIP
- ADIP
- D:SFPO*
D:NRR yp p.
EDO NAME DMatthews WKane WBrach JCollins WTnOrs [
DATE 04/05/99 04/05/99 04/06/99
' 04/ 6 /99 M 0 ( /99 OFFICIAL OFFICE COIE
~
u
~
- r. Dana Powers While hg initial NRC effort is limited to domestic spent fuel casks, staff is activel cussing with DOT oposals to extend "50.59-type" changes to all radioactive materi ackages through a po ible revision to the International Atomic Energy Agency I
) transportation regulations. N and DOT have agreed to present this issue as a position at the upcoming meeting of TRAN C (IAEA's Transport Safety Standards A
.sory Committee) in May 1999.
Sincerely, William D. Travers Executive Director for Operations cc: Chairman Jackson Commissioner Dic Commissioner z
Commissio r McGaffigan Commi oner Merrifield
\\,x DISTRIBUTION: See attached page i
DOCUMENT NAME: G:\\5059\\g990156
/)
/
l SC:RGEB: DRIP /C:RGEBd4 OFFICE QGQB; DRIP TECH. EDITOR NAME dNcEnnisw R. Sa,gbm FAkstulewdhM CCarpenth a
DATE 04// /99 04 6/99 04///99
/
04/2.-/99 OFFICE D:DRl( g ADdgg I
D:SFPO D:NRR my EDO NAME DMatthdwsI $$1e WBrakh
[JCo',iins WTravers DATE 4 /S /99 k/I/99 l{/(p/Qg Il// 6 /99
/
/99 OFFICIAL OFFICE COPY 4
DISTRIBUTION: Green Ticket 990156 Dated Central File (w/ incoming)(GT 990150)
PUBLIC (w/ incoming)(GT 990156)
EDO r/f (w/ incoming)(GT 990156)-
NRR MAILROOM (w/ incoming)(GT 990156)
PGEB r/f(w/ incoming)(GT 990156)
- WDTravers FMiraglia, Jr.
1 MKnapp PNorry JBlaha -
GTracy JMitchell KCyr
. SBurns ACRS r/f SCollins RZimmerman BSheron CPapenello, NMSS WBrach, NMSS PBrochman, NMSS DMatthews SNewberry CCarpenter FAkstulewicz EMcKenna MManahan, (G990156)
I RLaskin (EMail/RSL) l l
=...
J
.s
[pm %
UNITED STATES
(
t NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
{
I ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS e
wAsmworow, o. c.aoses March 22,1999 The Honorable Shirley Ann Jackson Chairman U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555-0001
Dear Chairman Jackson:
SUBJECT:
SECY-99-054, " PLANS FOR FINAL RULE - REVISIONS TO 10 CFR PARTS 50, 52, AND 72: REQUIREMENTS CONCERNING CHANGES, TESTS, AND EXPERIMENTS" During the 460* meeting of the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, March 10-13, 1999, we met with representatives of the NRC staff and the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) tc discuss SECY-99-054, " Plans for Final Rule - Revisions to 10 CFR Parts 50, 52, and 72:
Requirements Concerning Changes, Tests, and Experiments," which includes the stafs proposed resolution of public comments and recommendations for revising 10 CFR 50.59. We also had the benefit of the documents referenced.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION) 1.
We recommend that the term " minimal" rather than " negligible" be used in the final revision to 10 CFR 50.59. Although the staff and industry have not yet agreed on a definition for " minimal," they agree that " minimal" is greater than " negligible." We believe that the current guidance in NEl 96-07, " Guidelines for 10 CFR 50.59 Safety Evaluations," to determine whether increases in probability are " negligible" is acceptable. The stars proposed revision removes the *zero risk" constraint in the current rule.
2.
We agree with the stafs decision to adopt the industry approach for maintaining the design bases of fission product barriers. There are still some differences between the staff and industry positions relating to the scope of systems to be considered. We believe that these can be resolved in the ongoing discussions between the industry and staff.
3.
We support the stafs proposed chenges to align 10 CFR Part 71 for packaging and transportation of radioactive material and Part 72 for independent storage of soent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste with 10 CFR 50.59. The staff should continue its work to extend these changes to an intemational level especially for the EDO --G19990156 MDMoI 94-3 1 0/
{,-
transport of spent nuclear fuel. Experience has shown that having incompatible rules for domestic and intemational activities create a difficult situation.
4.
At this time, there is no benefit from expanding the scope of 10 CFR 50.59. Redefinition of the scope should be considered as part of the risk-informed revision to the rule, which we believe should be pursued on an expedited basis.
5.
We believe that the revised 10 CFR 50.59 can and should be implemented earlier than the schsdule proposed by the staff.
6.
The stafs proposed approach to resolve questions of scope and margin of safety appears to address our concems.
DISCUSSION There appears to be improved consistency between the stars proposed approach and existing industry implementation guidance in NEl 96-07. We continue to believe that the 10 CFR 50.59 process has been implemented successfully for more than 30 years. The objective to simplify, clarify, and restore stability to the 10 CFR 50,59 process justifies the current initiative to revise th* rule.
The proposed changes to 10 CFR 50.59 largely codify past practices. It seems, then, reasonable to expect that implementation can be accomplished in a shorter time than is being pE-;-:::1 in the March 5,1999, Staff Requirements Memorandum, the Commission requested that the ACRS provide a list of key questions and issues which should be considered during the current 10 CFR 50.59 rulemaking effort along with any recommended answers or positions. We previously provided a list of questions to the Commission on this matter in our February 18, 1999 report. The staff and industry are making progress in resolving issues / questions associated with margin of safety. We believe that the ongoing dialogue between the industry and staff will resolve several of the key issues. Commission direction and guidance on proposrA final rule language would expedite the current 10 CFR 50.59 effort.
We support completion of the proposed rulemaking to provide stability to the 10 CFR 50.59.
process and look forward to reviewing the proposed final rule. The focus should soon shift to developing a risk-informed version of 10 CFR 50.59.
Sincerely, F
o VM5 e n_
Dana A. Powers Chairman
^
,,.. l-It
(,',
I
References:
l 1.
Memorandum dated February 22,1999, from William D. Travers, Executive Director for Operations, NRC, to the Commissioners, SECY-99-054,
Subject:
Plans for Final Rule -
Revisions to 's0 CFR Parts 50,52, and 72: Requirements Concertaing Changes, Tests, and Experirnents.
2.
Memorandum dated March 5,1999, from Annette Viette-Cook, Secretary, NRC, to John T. Larkins, Executive Director, ACRS/ACNW,
Subject:
Staff Requirements - Meeting with Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, February 3,1999.
3.
Report dated February 18,1999, from Dana A. Powers, Chairman, ACRS, to Shirley Ann Jackson, Chairman, NRC,
Subject:
List of Questions to be Addressed for Possible Resolution of Key issues Associated with the Proposed Revision to 10 CFR 50.59 (Changes, Tests and Experiments).
4.
Nuclear Energy institute, NEl-96-07, Revision 0, " Guidelines for 10 CFR 50.03 Safety Evaluations," September 1997.
i l
i i