ML20211H654

Responds to 990311 Request for Ofc Review & Concurrence on Final Rule Package on Amends to 10CFR72.OGC Has No Legal Objection to Draft Commission Paper & Draft FRN Subj to Encl Changes

ML20211H654
Person / Time
Issue date:	04/01/1999
From:	Treby S NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC)
To:	Cool D NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS)
Shared Package
ML20211H604	List: ML20211H598 ML20211H623 ML20211H654 ML20211H660 ML20211H707 ML20211H712 ML20211H719 ML20211H725 ML20211H730 ML20211H737 ML20211H742 ML20211H754 ML20211H763
References
FRN-64FR33178, RULE-PR-72 AF80-2-011, NUDOCS 9909020142
Download: ML20211H654 (23)

Text

1

• PDR \

Afg6 -v}&la rk A w 1

[,p uayq UNITED STATES j

l j dufv' NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION (7

1. WASHINGTON, D.C. 2065MX)01 1

4 9 . . . . . ,o April 1, 1999 MEMORANDUM TO: Donald A. Cool, Director Division of Industrial and l Medical Nuclear Safety, NMSS  ;

FROM: Stuart A.Tre Assistant General Counsel for Rulemaking and Fuel Cycle, OGC l

SUBJECT:

FINAL RULE: AMENDMENTS TO 10 CFR PART 72 -

MISCELLANEOUS CHANGES TO LICENSING REQUIREMENTS FOR THE INDEPENDENT STORAGE OF SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL AND <

HIGH-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE This is in response to your March 11,1999, request for Office review and concurrence on the subject package. The Office of the General Counsel has no legal objection to the draft Commission paper and draft Federal Reaister Notice subject to the attached changes.

i

Attachment:

As stated I CONTACT: E. Neil Jensen, OGC 415-1637 i

1 i

9909020142 990831 l PDR PR 72 64FR33178 PDR }

l i

4cl096L 0

r

[ t The Commissioners 9 DISCUSSION: p %Q %

in response the notice of proposed rulemaking, four comment letters were rece' d, with 19 comments. A ommenters supported the rulemaking. After analyzing the com ents, the staff agreed with and i rporated the recommended changes with the exception three comments. These a s follows: -

._ = ~ - __

1. One commenter believe at the retention of OA records, until te ination of the license for Part 72 licensees, and the addi ' n of the specificinformation to et existing reporting requirements, do not comply with Backfit Rule. No change as been made to the final rule because the Staff has taken the posi ' n that the backfitting ovisions do not apply to reporting I

and recordkeeping to verify licensee co, liance with the trent licensing basis for a facility under Parts 50 and 72 requirements. The taff's positi is reflected in the Charter of the Committee to Review Generic Requirements RG , Revision 6, dated Apri! 1996. The proposed response to this comment reflects th 's proposed Commission position on this issue. The staff requests Commission approva he proposed staff position in approving this final rule.

2. A second commenter recommended at the OA prog for Part 72 should also include OA requirements of Part 71 and believed at the OA requireme ts of Part 71 are equivalent to the OA requirements in Part 72. The ff agrees that the OA pro am requirements in 10 CFR Parts 50,71, and 72 are equival t; however, this issue is being nsidered in a separate rulemaking.

3. The language used ' this final rule is in @ 72.75 and is consistent wi current language in 6 50.73. However, Commission should note the staff is proposing ad 'onal rulemaking with changes b - proposed for 50.73. Should that rulemaking go forwar the staff will consider wh er conforming changes to Part 72 would be appropriate.

COORDINATION:

The Office of the General Counsel has no legal objection to this paper. The Office of the Chief Financial Officer has reviewed this paper for resource implications and nas no objections. The Office of the Chief Information Officer has reviewed the rule for information technology and information management implications and concurs in the rulemaking.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

That the Commission:

1. Acorove the Notice of Final Rulemaking for publication (Attachment 2).

2. Certify that this rule,if promu! gated, will not have a negative economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, to satisfy requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act,5 U.S.C. 605(b).

1 l

g

1. One commenter believed that two of the changes being adopted in this final rule do not comply with the Backfit Rule: (1) the amendment to 72.140(d) requiring that Part 72 licensees who rely on Part 50, Appendix B, quality assurance (OA) programs must also meet the requirement of 72.174 for retention of records until termination of the license; and (2) the amendment to 72.75(d) requiring detailed specific information to meet existing reporting requirements. The commenter noted that these changes willinvolve changes in licensee procedures and therefore, in the commenter's view, should be considered a backfit under 72.62(a)(2) which defines "backfitting" as "the addition, elimination, or modification, after the license has been issued, of ... (p]rocedures or organization required to operate an !SFSI or MRS."

The staff has not adopted this comment based on a long-standing legal interpretation that the Backfit Rule is not applicable to recordkeeping and reporting requirements. We note that this interpretation was stated in SECY-93-086 (April 1,1993) and that the Commission's June 30, 1993 SRM on this paper did not express any objection to this interpretation. The staff's position j that the Backfit Rule does not apply to recordkeeping and reporting requirements is stated in the Charter of the CRGR, Revision 6 (April 1996)in footnote 11:

l Reporting requirements such as those contained in 10 CFR 50.72 and 10 CFR 50.73 (for power reactors), or those contained in [10 CFR 30.50] and 10 CFR 70.52 (for nuclear materials activities), are more akin to information requests covered under 10 CFR 50.54(f) than they are to modifications covered under the backfit rule (10 CFR l 50.109). They should be justified by evaluation against criteria similar to the analogous provision in 10 CFR 50.54(f), i.e., by demonstrating that the burden of reporting is justified in view of the potential safety benefits to be obtained from the information reported.

The potential burden on licensees from recordkeeping and reporting requirements are considered in the context of meeting the requireme.nts of the Paperwork Reduction Act, as well as in the Regulatory Analysis. The proposed response to Comment 7 in the attached FRN explicitly states that the Commission views the backfitting provisions in Parts 50 and 72 as not applicable to reporting and recordkeeping requirements. The staff requests Commission approval of this position in approving this final rule.

2. A second commenter noted that the present, and proposed,72.140(d) would allow an existing Quality Assurance (OA) program which meets the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, to satisfy the requirements of Part 72 and requested that a OA program that meets the requirements of Part 71, Subpart H, also be allowed to satisfy the requirements of Part 72.

Although staff agrees that the OA program requirements in 10 CFR Parts 50,71 and 72 are equivalent, this comment has not been accepted because this issue is being considered in a separate rulemaking.

3. One commenter noted that an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking (63 FR 39522, July 23,1998)is proposing changes to some of the requirements in 10 CFR 50.73(b) which specify the information which must be included in written event reports pertaining to human performance (10 CFR 50.73(b)(2)(J)) and that this same information is being added to 72.75(d)(2)in this rulemaking. This rulemaking will make the requirements in Part 72 for written event report information consistent with the present requirements of Part 50. Should the Part 50 rulemaking go forward, the staff will consider whether conforming changes to Part 72 would be appropriate.

l

[7590 01-P]  ;

L NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l

a 10 CFR Part 72 RIN 3150-AF80 Miscellaneous Changes to Licensing Requirements for the Independent Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste l

l AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.  !

t 1 I

l l

I ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)is amending its regulations to correct severalinconsistencies and to clarify certain sections of its regulations pertaining to the storage I

of spent fuel and high level radioactive waste. The amendments differentiate the requirements for the storage of spent fuel under wet and dry conditions, clarify requirements for the content l

and submission of various reports, and specify that quality assurance (QA) records must be maintained as permanent records when identified with activities and items important to safety.

These amendments are necessary to facilitate NRC inspections to verify compliance with reporting requiremenko ensure the protection of public health and safety and the environment. ,><

i EFFECTIVE DATE: (Insert 60 days after date of publication).

c. -.

l l

l The current regulations in @ 72.44 on reporting annual summaries of radioactive effluents release from dry storage casks imposek an unnecessary regulatory burden on Part 72 licensees by requiring submittal of these reports on a schedule that is different from that required by j 10 CFR Part 50. Most Part 72 licensees are also Part 50 licensees. Consequently, this i regulation imposed an unnecessary regulatory burden on Part 72 licensees.

l l The current regulations in 6 72.75 on reporting requirements for specific events and g parii conditions are inconsistent with thgrehuirem% ents for similar reactor-type events contained in  ;<

50.73. l l

l

. The regulations in 72.122 and 72.124 on instrumentation and neutron poison efficacy requirements are undu!y burdensome when applied to dry storage cask technology. The Commission has received nine requests for exemption from these regulations over the last three l 1

years. 1 1

The current regulations in Subpart G (quality assurance (QA) requirements) regarding uAewhM retention of Part 72 QA records differ from thevyequirements imposed on Part 50 license holders. Y pub 6, x Seetten 72.140(d) currently allows a Part 72 license holder to take credit for its Part 50 QA program in meeting the requirements of Subpart Cy% dh%e result %t oli f(et avy idenhey (ce{ui(Mepd5 a.re hnposeed on 6ct 92 lice-seen .

l Discussion i

This final rule makes eight clarifying changes to Part 72. These changes differentiate the requirements for the storage of spent fuel under wet and dry conditions and ensure that 3

3 I

=

The change to 72.4 provides that, except where otherwise specified, all communications and reports are to be addressed to NRC's Document Control Desk (DCD)

I rather than to the Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards (NMSS). Three current regulations govern the submission of written reports under Part 72 ( @ 72.75,72.216(b),

and 50.72(b)(2)(vii)(B), which is referenced in @ 72.216(a)). Under Q 72.75(d)(2p report is sent )<

to the DCD. However 50.72(b)(2)(vii)(B) and 72.216(b) indicate that the report be sen3as  ;<

instructed in @ 72.4, to the Director, NMSS. To achieve consistency, 72.4 is revised to instruct that reports shall be sent to the DCD. Licensing correspondence forwarded to the NRC's DCD ensures proper docketing and distribution. Also, 72.216(c) is revised to correct an error in the paragraph designation. The current regulation 72.75(a)(2) and (3) is revised to read 72.75(b)(2) and (3).

3. Change the requirement for submittal of the dry cask storage effluent report in 72.44.

Currently, @ 72.44(d)(3) requires that a dry cask storage effluent report be submitted to the appropriate NRC regional office within the first 60 days of each year. Section 50.36a(a)(2) requires that a similar report be submitted to the Commission once each year specifying liquid and gaseous effluents from reactor operations.

The revision permits reactor licensees, who also possess licenses for ISFSis, to submit their dry cask storage effluent report to the NRC once each year, at the same time as the effluent report from their reactor operations. The dry cask stcrage effluent report would be submitted within 60 days after the end of the 12 month monitoring period. However, after the 5

- I l

l

6. Clarify the requirement specifying instrument and control systems for monitoring dry spent fuel storage in 72.122(i).

Section 72.122(i) requires that instrumentation and control systems be provided to monitor systems important to safety, but does not distinguish between wet and dry spent fuel storage systems. For wet storage, systems are required to monitor and control heat removal.

For dry storage, passive heat removal is used and a control system is not required. This rule  !

clarifies that control systems are not needed for dry spent fuel storage systems.

7. Clarify the requirement for dry spent fuel storage casks on methods of criticality controlin @ 72.124(b).

1 Section 72.124(b) requires specific methods for criticality control, including the requirement that where solid neutron absorbing materials are used, the design must provide for positive means to verify their continued efficacy. This requirement is appropriate for wet spent fuel storage systems, but not for dry spent fuel storage systems. The potentially corrosive environment under wet storage conditions is not present in dry storage systems, because an inert environment is maintained. Under these conditions, there is no mechanism to significantly i

degrade the neutron absorbing materials. In addition, the dry spent fuel storage casks are sealed and it is not practical nor desirable to penetrate the integrity of the cask to make the measurements verifying the efficacy of neutron absorbing materials. This rule clarifies that positive means for verifying the continued efficacy of solid neutron absorbing materials are not required for dry storage systems, when the continued efficacy may be confirmed by demonstration or analysis before use.

7

. 1 l

Four comment letters were received in response to the proposed rule. One was from the l Department of Energy (DOE) Idaho Operations Office, one was from a private enterprise, and two were from nuclear power plant licensees. All commenters were supportive of the proposed rule.

Public Comments

1. Comment: One commenter believed that to ensure consistency with existing regulations in Part 72 and with another NRC proposed rulemaking," Expand Applicability of Regulations to Holders of, and Applicants for, Cert.ficates of Compliance and Their Contractors and Subcontractors"(63 FR 39526; July 23,1998)which proposes to define a Certificate of X Compliance (CoC) as a certificate approving the " design" of a spent fuel storage cask (as opposed to approving a cask), changes should be made to sections @ 72.1 and 72.2(f).

whic.b cgO(6 6%e pwgWM rMt. 63 been ettweed i 1o Resoonse: ,.

e Commission agrees with this comment. Changes have been made to @

/-

72.1 and 72.2(fft'o reflect the fact that Certificates of Compliance are issued to approve spent 4

fuel storags ask design in accordance with the requirements of this part as stated in %

72.236' rather than indiviNasQdfon, in Q 72.2(f), th.e phrad)"in accordance with rhe requirements of subpart L of this part" to reflect the fact that all the requirements of subpart L i

pertain to the issuance of certificates of compliance. l i

i j

2. Comment: One commenter noted that the proposed revision to Q 72.4 removes l

. existing language which provides the street address for NRC's headquarters office. The l 1

commenter noted that this information is necessary for persons who wish to either mail  !

l 9 I l

l

communications to the NRC using a private courier service (e.g., FedEx or UPS) or deliver their communication in person. Additionally, @ 72.4 did not provide any guidance for instances in which the due date for a report or written communication falls on a weekend or holiday. In that regard the language in 50.4(e) should be used as an example.

Resoonse: The Commission agrees with this comment. The current language in 72.4 containing the street address to be used for personal delivery is being retained. In addition, the suggested changes have been made for reports due on the weekend or a holiday. The Public Docket Room at 2120 L Street NW, Washington, DC is no longer receiving mail deliveries, because all mail is delivered to NRC Headquarters.

3. Comment: For 72.44(d)(3), one commenter was concerned that allowing flexibility in the timing for submitting the annual report could create "ratcheting" of the due date and result in the submittal of each report earlier than required to avoid lateness. The change proposed by the commenter to require that each report be submitted within 60 days from the end of each monitoring period and not to exceed the 12-month reporting interval would ensure timely submittal of these reports.

Resoonse: The Commission agrees that the language in the proposed rule needs clarification. The Commission has added language in the final rule to clarify that the report must be submitted within 60 days after the end of the 12-month monitoring period. This change will allow flexibility in timing of submitting the annual report without resulting in the submittal of each report earlier thfrequired to avoid lateness.

10

V l

4. Comment: Two commenters noted that current @ 72.75(d)(2) requires a written follow-up report when an event or condition requires an emergency notification under 9 72.75(a) or a non-emergency four hour report under 72.75(b), but that a written follow-up report is not required when the event or condition requires a non emergency 24-hour report under

@ 72.75(c). The second commenter suggested that the NRC clarify its expectation for Part 72 licensees regarding the use of NRC Form 366 and the format and guidance contained in NUREG 1022, Revision 1," Events Reporting Guidelines 10 CFR 50.72 and 50.73."

1 1

1

! Response: The Commission agrees with the comment on the first issue and the l 29 bod Y I

suggested change has been made to require a written follow up report after a oral notification, l

The written report is required for documentation for future use and inspections. With respect to l

! the second issue, the Commission believes that use of NRC Form 366 and the guidance I

8eVi l /

contained in NUREG-1022fs an acc,eptable method for preparing written event reports; however, licensees are not required to follow this method if the written report contains all the information required by 6 72.75(d)(2). Therefore, no change has been made to address the l

l secondissue.

l S. Comment: One commenter recommended not specifying the address and addresses in different sections of the regulations where licensees submit reports to NRC. Instead, the commenter recommended the use of one initiallocation to indicate where reports are submitted to simplify the regulations and ensure a consistent approach. Further, the references in Part 72 to the location where persons are to submit information to the NRC should use the phrase "in 11

Wu. .

the substantialincrease in protection standard and asserts that the NRC appears to be applying

-a new test; i.e., whether the changes are sufficiently trivial to ignore the Backfit Rule.

l Response: Under @ 72.62,"backfitting" includes the modification, after the license has been issued, of procedures or organization required to operate an ISFSI or MRS. This backfitting provision is very similar to the Backfit Rule in s 50.109 which is applicable to reactor licensees. The staff's positionfs stated in the Charter of the Committee to Review Generic N Requirements (CRGR), Revision 6, dated April 1996, in footnote 11,is "....(11) Reporting 'x requirements such as those contained in 10 CFR 50.72 and 10 CFR 50.73 (for power reactors), i 30 or those contained in (10 CFR 5Q.50) and 10 CFR 70.52 (for nuclear materials activities), are  % ,

more akin to information requests covered under 10 CFR 50.54(f) than they are to modifications covered under the backfit rule (10 CFR 50.109). They should be justified by evaluation against criteria similar to the analogous provision in 10 CFR 50.54(f), i.e., by demonstrating that the burden of reporting is justified in view of the potential safety benefits to be obtained from the information reported." g No change has been made to the final rule because the(s%iewbhe backfitting K provisions in Parts 50 and 72 as not applicable to reporting and recordkeeping requirements. If it were necessary for an information collection and reporting requirement to meet the current standard for imposing a backfit (i.e., a substantialincrease in protection of the public health and safety), the Commission would be placed in the untenable position of attempting to show that information requests would substantially increase public health and safety, without knowing the actual results of the request. Therefore, the commenter's suggested change is rejected.

(

13

1

8. Comment: One commenter recommended that the proposed change to @ 72.140(d) )

should also include OA programs which satisfy the requirements of Subpart H of 10 CFR l Part 71. The commenter believes that OA requirements in Part 71 are equivalent to the OA ,

1 requirements in Parts 50 and 72.

l l

Response: While the staff agrees that the QA program requirements in Parts 50,71, and 72 are equivalent, this comment is beyond the scope of this rufemaking. This issue is being considered in a separate rulemaking.

meomtNeb (p6403 9. Comment : One commente hat the wording in @ 72.75(d)(2)(ii)(5) and (6) be revised 4 l

to change the word ro " plant" to " facility" to be consistent with wording in @ 72.75(d)(2(ii). I f

l l

Response: The Commission agrees with this comment and the change has been made.

~G gso 10. Comment: One commenter recommended adding " spent fuel storage"in the second and third sentences to better describe " cask design requirements"in 72.122(h)(4).

l i

to m.ncA Sc. clioatt hM !'re'n M ' y Response: The Ccmmission agrees with this_cAaege and th!: W :.Tetlon he; bccn

-wv u m eaxua my *%%m"Qu*&"

u~, w um n c

" $n 1

c @ ,,%ch Q wM nesA '. 4 Vn yMQ y k^&n d p q m % -~ W 3 m

11. Comment: One commenter recommende addng Sc ::= " cask'*-after "fec=y.

3

(..<.

l

[Tswh-i

\

Response: The Ovnuinoo,vn voo; net be ,ou avving uiu mnn " ei" b n:0ded br^'"d ,

' - ~ ~

tEmic cue d$e.oni dwagn uvd!g'J:2M^S. -

p fd 4 -w.

% uw. .

@ IOM 4M hw <-Q %d W L ,,

1 '41 o k (

• b,'

• J C M cLe W E t 5 ? d .r1 5 (ct) ( Q D U1 del 4 h%d4. c. ,,

{6**~W:%.c=- h e *$ h w e A p.,6.. A se Comment: One commenter stated that there is no provision in Part 72 for changes to rodcek NRCIu'a$ity assurance programs comparable to Q 50.54(a)(3) unless a licensee has a Q A Pr 0%fe.vn  % tcw1utf t~

} 72.140(d. ncorporating an approved Part 50 program and requesbthat a provision similar to I

those foundin Q 72.44(e) and 72.44(f) be provided !ct y p eg cm sim d for NnO cpp: '; L l 40 at\ow Sw c%ys So a R A qtoyw ai ko.d NRC agfcNak **n ole (nnech c i rcu m @M c5.

Response: The proposed recommendation is beyond the scope of this rulemaking action.

e. rbt ^ter requested that Q 72.80(b) be clarified to exclude DOEM FI Comment: h m- -

(rm Ne. ree(v.irec~d io submit a copy of 'tsannualfinuria.1 (cfMI, Sech m Response:$72.22(e) excludes DOE from financial assurance requirements.

Specific Changes in Regulatory Text l l

The following section is provided to assist the reader regarding the specific changes made to each section or paragraph in 10 CFR Part 72. For clarity and content, a substantial portion of a particular section or paragraph may be repeated, while only a minor change is being made. This approach will allow the reader to effectively review the specific changes without cross reference to existing material that has been included for content, but has not been significantly changed.

Sections 72.1 (Purpose) and 72.2 (Scope): These sections are revised to remove superseded information regarding the FederalInterim Storage Program that has expired and l

1 l

15 l

l l

.]

. 1 i'

(Oindicate that Subpart L provides requirements, procedures, and criteria for approval of spent )(

fuel storage cask designs and issuance of a Certificate of Compliance, l

Sections 72.4 and 72.216: These revisions specify that all communications and reports l are addressed to the NRC's Document Control Desk.

L Section 72.44: This revision permits reactor licensees, who also possess licenses for ISFSis, to submit dry cask storage effluent report once each year at the same time as the effluent report for reactor operations,instead of submitting dry cask storage effluent report within 60 days of the beginning of each year.

Section 72.75: This change incorporates specific format and content information j requirements comparable to reporting requirements that already exist for similar reactor type events in Q 50.73(b).

Section 72.122(h)(4): This revision is made to state that periodic monitoring instead of continuous monitoring is appropriate for dry spent fuel storage.

Section 72.122(i): This section specifies the differences between wet pool spent fuel storage instrumentation and control systems and dry spent fuel storage cask instrumentation systems.

16

1

- 1 l

l are the types of action described as a categorical exclusion in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(3). Therefore, I

neither an environmental impact statement nor an environmental assessment has been I

1 prepared for this regulation.  ;

l Paperwork Reduction Act Statement NFinal Rule Containina Insionificant Information CollectionD M

This rule increases the burden on licensees by increasing the record retention period to DC /

4 #

life of icense in 72.140(d). The public burden for this information collection is estimated to average 38 hours4.398148e-4 days <br />0.0106 hours <br />6.283069e-5 weeks <br />1.4459e-5 months <br /> per request. This rule also increases the types of events which would require .

1 a written report under 72.75(d) and the reporting burden is estimated to average 50 hours5.787037e-4 days <br />0.0139 hours <br />8.267196e-5 weeks <br />1.9025e-5 months <br /> per request. Because the burden for this information collection is insignificant, Office of Management and Budget (OMB) clearance is not required. Existing requirements were approved by the Office of Management and Budget, approval number 3150-0132.  ;

l Public Protection No;;fication if an information collection does not display a currently valid OMB control number, the NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, the information collection.

l j

Regulatory Analysis i

18 l l

l I

i

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act In accordance withe Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1966, the NRC has ye determined that this action is not a major rule and has verified this determination withDffice of X ,

I information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB.

1 l

l l

i l

l 1

l l

l l

l l

l l

1 l

I l

20  !

I i

I procedures, and criteria for the Opp ex' of [ent fuel storage cask dQpnd he issuance of

[ Certificates of Compliancfen.gWin

3. In 72.2, paragraph (e) is removed, paragraph (f) is redesignated as paragraph (e) l l and a new paragraph (f) is added to read as follows:

@ 72.2 Scope. ,

I l

Cd(S iql', S (f) CertificateI of Compliance approving !"0 rr dspent fuel storage caskj hall be issued in accordance with the requirements of subpart L of this part.

l 4. Section 72.4 is revised to read as follows:

I 72.4 Communications.

! Except where otherwise specified, all communications and reports concerning the l

regulations in this part and applications filed under them should be addressed to the U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ATTN: Document Control Desk, Washington, DC 20555 0001.

Written communicatior4 reports, and applications may be delivered in person to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission at One White Flint North,11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852-2738 between 7:30 am and 4:15 pm eastern time. If the submittal deadline date falls on a l Saturday, or Sunday, or a Federal holiday, the next Federal working day becomes the official due date.

5. In 72.44, paragraph (d)(3) is revised to read as follows : (

l J t <

23 l

5 6 72.44 License conditions.

(d) * * *

(3) An annual report be submitted to the Commission in accordance with @ 72.4, i

specifying the quantity of each of the principal radionuclides released to the environment in liquid Suk  ;

and in gaseous effluents during the previous 12 months of operation andgother information OS thatmay be required by the Commission to estimate maximum potential radiation dose commitment to the public resulting from effluent releases. On the basis of this report and any additional information that the Commission may obtain from the licensee or others, the Commission may from time to time require the licensee *o take such action as the Commission deems appropriate. The report must be submitted within 60 days after the end of the 12-month ,

monitoring period.

6. In @ 72.75, paragraph (d)(2) is revised, and paragraphs (d)(3), (d)(4), (d)(5), (d)(6) and (d)(7) are added to read as follows:

@ 72.75 Reporting requirements for specific events and conditions.

(d) * * *

(2) Written report. Each licensee who makes an initial notification required by paragraphs (a), (b), or (c) of this section also shall submit a written follow-up report within 30 noh h eabov1 days of the initial eeport. Written reports prepared pursuant to other regulations may be submitted to fulfill this requirement if the reports contain all the necessary information and the 24

< l l

(

t 1

t-appropriate distribution is made. These written reports must be sent to the Commissio n ,<

l accordance with 72.4. These reports must include the following:

(i) A brief abstract describing the major occurrences during the event, including all

]

component or system failures that contributed to the event and significant corrective action taken 1

or planned to prevent recurrence; (ii) A clear, specific, narrative description of the event that occurred so that knowledgeable readers conversant with the design of ISFSI or MRS, but not familiar with the l

details of a particular facility, can understand the complete event. The narrative description must l

include the following specific information as appropriate for the particular event:

(A) ISFSI cr MRS operating conditions before the event; (B) Status of structures, components, or systems that were inoperable at the start of the event and that contributed to the event; I (C) Dates and approximate times of occurrences; (D) The cause of each component or system failure or personnel error, if known; j (E) The failure mode, mechanism, and effect of each failed component,if known; (F) A list of systems or secondary functions that were also affected for failures of components with multiple functions; (G) For wet spent fuel storage systems only, after failure that rendered a train of a safety system inoperable, an estimate of the elapsed time from the discovery of the failure until the train was returned to service; (H) The method of discovery of each component or system failure or procedural error; (l){jj Operator actions that affected the course of the event, including operator errors, procedural deficiencies, or both, that contributed to the event;

(_2) For each personnel error, the licensee shall discuss:

25

I.

established, maintained, and executed with regard to an ISFSI will be accepted as satisfying the requirements of paragraph (b) of this section, except that a licensee using an Appendix B quality assurance program also shall meet the requirement of @ 72.174 for recordkeeping. Prior to I

initial use, the licensee shall notify the Commissionjin accordance with @ 72.4, of its intent to 4 I apply its previously approved Appendix B quality assurance program to ISFSI activities. The licensee shall identify the program by date of submittal to the Commission, docket number, and date of Commission approval.

1 i

9.In 72.216, paragraph (c) is revised to read as follows: I

@ 72.216 Reports.

(c) The general licensee shall make initial and written reports in accordance with 72.74 and 72.75, except for the events specified by @ 72.75(b)(2) and (3) for which the initial ,

l reports will be made under paragraph (a) of this section. I i

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this. day of .1999.

I For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

i Annette L. Viette Cook, Secretary of the Commission.

29

r l

l REGOLATORY ANALYSIS l Miscellaneous Changes to 10 CFR Part 72 Licensing Requirements for the Independent Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High Level Radioactive Waste Statement of the Problem The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is amending its regulations to ensure that Part 72 l requirements would include: (1) clarifying reporting and recordkeeping requirements consistent 50.'13( O /

with event reporting requirements in 10 CFR M arid (2) maintaining quality assurance (QA) records (prescribed in 72.174) as permanent records for those licensees who adopkb&an Appendix 8 to Part 50 Quality Assurance Program. j Objectives The objectives of the amendments are as follows:

(1) To clarify specific reporting and recordkeeping requirements in @ 72.75.

(2) To clarify that Part 72 requires that all licensees, including those licensees under an Appendix B to Part 50 QA program, maintain OA records permanently until termination of the license.

r.

Cost and Benefit Analysis Qosts:

1. Section 72.75 contains reporting requirements for specific events and conditions, including the requirement in 72.75(d)(2) for a follow-up written report for certain types of emergency and nonemergency notifications. This rule clarifies the specific information required

. to meet the intent of the existing reporting requirement. A comparable reporting requirement already exists for similar reactor type events in 50.73(b). This rule incorporates the format i

and content outlined in 50.73(b)into 72.75(d)(2) to clearly inform licensees of the i l

information necessary for the NRC staff's review. i k

Relative to the clarificatio requirements in 72.75(d), the staff has revised the regulatory analysis and recalculated the associated reporting burden. The clarification of reporting and recordkeeping requirements in $ 72.75 is estimated to produce an incremental annual burden per licensee of about 21 hrs. This is based on the differential between the average number of hours currently expended to produce a report under Q 50.73 (50 hours5.787037e-4 days <br />0.0139 hours <br />8.267196e-5 weeks <br />1.9025e-5 months <br />) vs.

the average number of hours currently expended to produce a report under 72.75(d) (8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br />), and an average number of reports per year of 0.5 per licensee. Assuming 20 licensees will be affected by this change, the total annualincrease in burden is about 420 hours0.00486 days <br />0.117 hours <br />6.944444e-4 weeks <br />1.5981e-4 months <br />. Given that the current industry-wide burden to meet the Part 72 reporting and recordkeeping requirements is about 21,000 hours0 days <br />0 hours <br />0 weeks <br />0 months <br />, this represents an increase of only 2 percent and is judged to be insignificant.

2

o reactor licensee. Thus, it is estimated that the 20-year incremental burden resulting from tnis rule change is S5000 per heensee. This figure is equally apphcable to both reactor and g

uho resdm nonreactor licensees storing spent fuel. Given that there are about 50 bcensees sem relymn the Appendix 8. OA program in heu of 72.142, the hfe-time incremental burcen for the affected livensee population is approximately $250.000.

For sensitivity analysis purposes, it is useful to recognize that this new regulatory requirement is currently being met under existing licensee practices, and in terms of real dollar outlay there is no change in burden associated with this regulatory action. This presumes _

however, that absent this proposed change, licensees using an Appendix B. OA program would continue to permanently maintain all records generated in support of Part 72 activities. The emphasis on maktng reports with the necessary information and maintaining permanent QA records until termination of the license would be on those activities and items that are identified as being important to safety.

Benefits:

The benefits associated with these rule changes are that necessary information is included in reports and QA records are maintained permanently when identified with activities and items important to safety. In the staff's view, this incremental benefit exceeds the relatively smallincremerital cost associated with this change.

4