ML20236X187
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:_-__ _ _ - - _ _ _ - _ __ - _ _ __ - ____ _ -____ _ _ _ _ - _ 7N 3/g uoqs? i e 3- -t j UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g{g
- I A* 2 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 U\ ***** / March 6, 1997 MEMORANDUM T0: L. Joseph Callan Executive Director for Operations FROM: David L. Morrison, Director ,
Office of Nuclear Regulatory Researc t - ,
SUBJECT:
RULEMAKING PLAN FOR MISCELLANE0US CHANGES TO 10 CFR PART 72 AND AMENDMENT 10 CFR PART 40 TO REMOVE NATURAL OR DEPLETED URANIUM USED IN STORAGE CASK SHIELDING FROM PART 40 LICENSING REQUIREMENTS (WITS-960162) Attached for your approval is a SECY Paper transmitting a Rulemaking Plan to the Commission for negative consent to amend certain sections in 10 CFR Part 72 to correct several inconsistencies and to clarify certain sections. The rulemaking would also amend the regulations to remove from the licensing requirements of 10 CFR Part 40 the use of natural or depleted uranium in dry spent fuel storage casks. The Rulemaking Plan for these proposed amendments, has been developed using A the guidance in NRC Management Directive 6.3, "The Rulemaking Process."
Attachment:
Commission Paper w/ enc 1. CONTACT: Mark Au, DRA/RES (301) 415-6181 9008070185 980804 . Y6 31364 PDR a-__ _--______!?? __ __I _
-,- g
. AF 60-/
)
p o,\j%d ( oFF4ckc-f1U March 6, 1997 ( MEMORANDUM TO: L. Joseph Callan -
~
Executive Director for Operations l FROM: David L. Morrison, Director /s/ David L. Morrison Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (
SUBJECT:
RULEMAKING PLAN FOR MISCELLANEOUS CHANGES TO 10 CFR PART 72 l AND AMENDMENT 10 CFR PART 40 TO REMOVE NATURAL OR DEPLElED l L URANIUM USED IN STORAGE CASK SHIELDING FROM PART 40 j LICENSING REQUIREMENTS (WITS-960162) Attached for your approval is a SECY Paper transmitting a Rulamaking Plan to the Commission for negative consent to amend certain sections in 10 CiP. ! Part 72 to correct several inconsistencies and to clarify certain sections. The rulemaking would also amend the regulations to remove from the licensing requirements of 10 CFR Part 40 the use of natural or depleted uranium in dry spent fuel storage casks. The Rulemaking Plan for these proposed amendments, has been developed using L -[ - l the guidance in NRC Management Directive 6.3, "The Rulemaking Process."
\
Attachment:
! Commission Paper w/ encl.
\
Distribution: l WMB/Rdg/Subj/ central PNorian FYoung ENJensen EDO R/F LBRiani CAGall agher . DMendiola EJordan l l[ED0-PL.P72] l CF Y N PDR Y N Ta receive a copy of this document,lndicate in the bon 'C' = Copy without attachment / enclosure "E" = Copy with attachrnent/ enclosure "N" = No copy l OFFICE WMB:DRAf I WMB:DRA e n 0:DRA (, JD D:RES [], l NAME MAuffF S SBahadur W '~,-@ orris # " DMorrison # i ~ DATE z g /97 S/ W 97 0 UdS97 %/ /197
~
OFFICIA_ RECORD COPY f (RES File Code) RES V l CONTACT: :di p (n) Mark Au, DRA/RES (301) 415-6181 3 bi. !v L
I 3 O l COMMISSION PAPER O O
i 1 i l i ("" i \ i I i i FOR: The Commissioners FROM: L. Joseph Callan, Executive Director for Operations
SUBJECT:
RULEMAKING PLAN: MISCELLANEOUS CHANGES TO 10 CFR PART 72 AND AMENDMENT TO 10 CFR PART 40 TO REMOVE NATURAL OR DEPLETED URANIUM USED IN STORAGE CASK SHIELDING FROM PART 40 LICENSING REQUIREMENTS PURPOSE: To inform the Commission that the ED0 intends to sign the enclosed Rulemaking
/'] Plan to amend certain sections in 10 CFR Part 72 to correct several
\' inconsistencies and to clarify certain sections. The rulemaking would also
/ amend the regulations to remove from the licensing requirements of 10 CFR Part 40 the use of natural or depleted uranium in dry spent fuel storage casks.
ISSUE: The Commission's licensing requirements for the independent storage of spent ; nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste are specified in 10 CFR Part 72. i
. Experience in applying Part 72 has indicated that it is not adequate in some respects and that certain additions and clarifications to the rule are necessary. This rulemaking would make eight miscellaneous changes to Part 72, and also would extend the exemption from licensing requirements for !
shipping containers using natural or depleted uranium as shielding (t 40.13(c)(6)) to storage casks using natural or depleted uranium as shielding. CONTACT: M. L. Au, WMB/DRA/RES (301) 415-6181 n U i _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ - - . ,
O ! The Commissioners 2 l DISCUSSION: l The Spent Fuel Project Office, NMSS, in a letter dated May 9,1996, proposed ! several changes to 10 CFR Part 72 together with a list of 18 miscellaneous ! items. In response to this request, RES initiated six rulemaking actions that were approved by the EDO on August 13, 1996. This rulemaking plan addresses a group of miscellaneous items that are proposed for implementation by a direct final rule. The items included in this rulemaking action are as follows:
. An amendment to Section 72.44(d)(3) would permit reactor licensees to submit the annual dry cask storage effluent report to the NRC at the same time as the annual reactor operations effluent report. j 1
l l . An administrative change to 5 72.4 would provide that, except where otherwise specified, all communications and reports be addressed to NRC's Document Control Desk rather than to the Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards. In addition, 5 72.216(c) would . be changed to correct improper references. l
. Amendments to the purpose (5 72.1) and scope (5 72.2) would make these sections more complete by specifically referencing the spent fuel ttorage cask approval process and also delete information in the purpose (Q) and scope sections regarding the Federal interim storage program since v the time frame for its implementation has expired (61 FR 35935, July 9, j
1996). An amendment to 5 72.122(h)(4) would clarify that the monitoring requirements can be different for wet and dry storage systems. An amendment to 5 72.122(i) would clarify that, unlike wet spent fuel l storage, control systems are not needed for dry storage systems, since no active systems are involved. An amendment to 5 72.124(b) would clarify that positive means for verifying the continued efficacy of solid neutron absorbing materials are not required for dry storage systems, where the efficacy is
- demonstrated at the outset.
- . An. amendment to 5 72.140(d) would require reactor licensees to maintain
) QA records pertaining to storage of spent fuel under Part 72 until ' termination of the license, even if those records were generated under a previously approved quality assurance programs conforming to Appendix B of Part 50. g i. W ^ - I- _- _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ -
(] The Commissioners 3
. An amendment to i 40.13(c)(6) would remove the use of natural or depleted urcnium in storage casks from the licensing requirements of Part 40.
. Event reporting requirements in i 72.75(d)(2) have been found to be incomplete. As a result, staff has frequently needed to request additional information from licensees subsequent to receiving event reports. Part 72 would be amended to clearly inform licensees of the information necessary for the staff's review of a licensee's report.
COORDINATION: (Ac ra h "* C ~j ja/ 4 The Office of the General Counsel has no legal objection to this Rulemaking Pl an. The Office of the Chief Financial Officer has no objection to the resource estimates contained in this-paper. The Office of the Chief Information Officer has reviewed the rulemaking plan for information and technology and information management implications and concurs in it. However, the plan suggests possible information collection requirements that must be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget prior to publication a of the ' proposed rule.
., , V,; ro p w. e t ;a % r Je.J . '
,,-{:
RECOMMENDATION: Note that it is my intention to approve the Rulemaking Plan within 10 days f] i f from the date of this paper unless otherwise directed by the Commission.
- v L. Joseph Callan Executive Director for Operations
Enclosure:
Rulemaking Plan l
The Commissioners 3 in\ Nj An amendment to i 40.13(c)(6) would remove the use of natural or depleted uranium in storage casks from the licensing requirements of Part 40.
. Event reporting requirements in 5 72.75(d)(2) have been found to be incomplete. As a result, staff has frequently needed to request additional information from licensees subsequent tu receiving event reports. Part 72 would be amended to clearly inform licensees of the information necessary for the staff's review of a licensee's report.
COORDINATION: The Office of the General Counsel has no legal objection to this Rulemaking i Plan. The Office of the Chief Financial Officer has no objection to the resource estimates contained in this paper. The Office of the Chief l Information Officer has reviewed the rulemaking plan for information and technology and information management implications and concurs in it. However, the plan suggests possible information collection requirements that must be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget prior to publication of the proposed rule. RECOMMENDATION: A Note that it is my intention to approve the Rulemaking Plan within 10 days (V) from the date of this paper unless otherwise directed by the Commission. L. Joseph Callan Executive Director i for Operations l
Enclosure:
Rulemaking Plan RECORD NOTE: A copy of the Rulemaking Plan was sent to IG for Information on: FEBRUARY 10. 1997. Distribution: RDB r/f Central File ED0 r/f Commissioners OGC OCAA OIG OPA OCA ASLBP SECY EJordan DOCUMENT NAME: 0:\MAU\COMPAPI.P72 To receive a copy of this document, indicate in the box: "C" - Copy without attachment / enclosure "E" - Copy with attachment / enclosure "N" = No copy j l0FFICE WMB:DRA WMB:DRA g n 0;CRA 4 g D:RES
//J EDO l
'""E Mau/tyf/w SBatpdur 7' G3Mgorris F' DLMorrison gfl LJCallan
-),f6/97 M97 2dV/97 1//,l97 l 197 -;
~
OFFICIAL RECORD COPY (RES File Codel RES
)0 )
l
1 NRC FORM 6 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l
' 2*) SECY -- 97 ,
AD 3 57 ac = o " SECY PAPER DISTRIBUTION f TYPE OF PAPER CLASSIFIED l CuSSinCADON POLICY AFFIRMATION JACKSON (1) MCGAFFIGAN (1) RULEMAK]NG NOTATION ROGERS (1) OGC (2) p) ADJUDICATORY g NEGATIVE CONSENT DICUS (1) SECY MEETING INFORMATION DIAZ (1) FILE CENTER (1) i DISTRIBUTION CHAIRMAN JACKSON EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR N FOR OPERATIONS (FORINFORMATION) P COMMISSIONER ROGERS p) RE OS (2) ANNISWN N COMMISSIONER Dicus p) (2) (IP RWEMAKING) l COMMISSIONER Dj az (3) OFFICE OF THE CONTROLLER (4) lNFORMATION RESOURCES (3) 3MMISSIONER McGaffigan 9) MANAGEMENT (IF RULEMAKING) (4)
;Y (10-14) ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION (5) o ORMEETING) (80) 3 OF OPERATIONAL DATA GENERAL COUNSEL (17) NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY (5)
(FOR AllIUDICATORV) (7) AND SAFEGUARDS INSPECTOR GENERAL (3) NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION (12) y COMMISS O PPELLATE NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH (12) { (1) OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT (1) CONGRESSIONAL AFFAIRS (2) OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS (2) INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMS (5) OFFICE OF PERSONNEL (1) PUBLIC AFFAIRS (2) SMALL BUSINESS AND civil RIGHTS (1) COMMITTEES AND PANELS
^ (20) OFFICE OF STATE PROGRAMS (3)
R CTOR SAF RS ADVISORY COMMlTTEE ON DOCUMENT CONTROL DESK (1) NUCLEAR WASTE, (10) ATOMIC SAFETY AND FILE CENTER (1) (4) LICENSING BOARD PANEL REGIONAL OFFICES: (C&R BRANCH, SECY) OTHER RI . KING OF PRUSSIA (2) TOTAL NUMBER OF COPIES k kil- ATLANTA (2) f RETURN ORIGINAL TO: b/ RIV- ARLINGTON (2) SQ \d$N b - i PRWTED ON RECYCLED PAPER NRC FOHM 6 (12M)
O O a e O l i ENCLOSURE RULEMAKING PLAN O i i f O
RULEMAKING PLAN FOR MISCELLANEOUS CHANGES TO 10 CFR PART 72 AND AMENDMENT TO 10 CFR PART 40 TO REMOVE NATURAL OR DEPLETED URANIUM USED IN STORAGF, CASK SHIELDING FROM PART 40 LICENSING REQUIREMENTS l j ! Lead Office: Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research 3 Staff
Contact:
Mark Au, WMB/DRA/RES i i l Concurrences: as /rtnW MX/j79
'D. Morris ~on, RES Date i
C. Papefiel16 NMSS hka 2 Datt ll7? 0 b R/ M. Scro'ggins, ACF0 WMlQ
'Date
$1 Nrt /47 w J ala6 CI Date m2 (1 yk7_
/B . JEeWoh, IRM / 'Date y Hx,wr 7u~f 4Jdas.
k) . S . hCo. Am( 0, ah >/%/D W. J Olmstead, OGC' Date ch 71'+p -7 A L. J. Callan, EDO Date Q ' O
1 1 N 02/27/97 Rulemaking Plan Miscellaneous Changes to Part 72 and Amendment to Part 40 to Remove Natural or' Depleted Uranium Used in Storage Cask Shielding from Part 40 Licensing Requirements I. Regulatory Issue The Commission's licensing requirements for the independent storage of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste are specified in 10 CFR Part 72. Experience in applying Part 72 has indicated that it is not adequate in some respects and that certain additions and clarifications to the rule are necessary. By memorandum dated May 9, 1996, the Spent Fuel Project Office, NMSS, proposed several changes to Part 72 together with a list of 18 miscellaneous items. In response to this request, RES initiated six rulemaking actions that were approved by the EDO. Five of the rulemaking actions are discussed in other rulemaking plans. This rulemaking plan addresses a group of miscellaneous items which would correct several inconsistencies and provide clarification to certain sections of Part 72. This rulemaking would also remove the use of natural or depleted uranium in storage
' casks from the licensing requirements of 10 CFR Part 40. This would be an extension of the shipping container exemption in 5 40.13(c)(6).
II. Proposed Changes Item 1 -- Requirement for Submittal of Dry Cask Storage Effluent Report
-- (172.44)
Regulatory Issue I Current regulations in 5 72.44(d)(3), " License Conditions", require submittal of a dry cask storage effluent report to the appropriate NRC regional office within the first 60 days of each year. Section 50.36a(a)(2), " Technical specifications on effluents from nuclear power , reactors," requires that a similar report be submitted to the Commission once each year specifying liquid and gaseous effluents from reactor operations. The proposed revision would permit reactor licensees to submit their dry l cask storage effluent report to the NRC once each year at the same time l l. as the effluent report from reactor operations. 1 1 i L
1 Preliminary Regulatory Analysis
' Draft Rule Langua_ge 1.
Section 72.44(d)(3) would be revised as follows (new language is underlined): 1 "An annual report be submitted to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN Document Control Desk. Washington, DC 20555. with a cm to the appropriate regional office specified in appendix A of Part 73 of this chapter, "ith a copy-te-the Director, Office of "!uclear Material Safety and Safeguardt, U.S. *!uclear Regulatcry Cc--iccien, Wa:F %gton, DC 20555, within 50 day after knuary 1, of each yearr specifying the quantity of each of the principal radionuclides released ; to the environment in liquid and in gaseous effluents during the l previous .12 months of operation and such other information as may be required by the Commission to estimate maximum potential radiation dose i commitment to the public resulting from effluent releases. On the basis i of this report and any additional information the Commission may obtain ! from the licensee or others, the Commission may from time to time require the licensee to take such action as the Commission deems appropriate."
- 2. Impact on the Licensees O Reactor licensees will obtain a small benefit since both annual reports may be submitted at the same time to the NRC.
Item 2 -- Requirement for making initial and written reports (il 72.4 and 72.216) Regulatory Issue An administrative change needs to be made to 6 72.4 to provide that, except where otherwise specified, all communications and reports be addressed to NRC's Document Control Desk rather than to the Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards. At present, three regulations govern the submission of written reports under Part 72: (1) 5 72.75, (2) 5 72.216(b), and (3) 6 50.72(b)(2)(vii) (which is referenced in 572.216(a)). Under 5 72.75 a report is sent to the Document Control Desk; however, the two other paragraphs direct that the report be sent as instructed in i 72.4 which specifies that reports be addressed to the Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards. To achieve consistency in the NRC addressee for Part 72 l reports, 5 72.4 is being revised to instruct that reports be sent to the Document Control Desk. Directing licensing correspondence to the NRC's Document Control Desk will ensure proper docketing and distribution. Also, 6 72.216(c) is being changed to correct an error. The present regulation references il 72.75(a)(2) and (3). The reference should be to il 72.75(bl(2) and (3). A i ) N) 2 w-- _ _ ---_ _
Preliminary Regulatory Analysis ( l. Draft Rule Language Section 72.216(c) would be revised and corrected as follows: (new language is underlined)
"The general licensee shall make...., except for the events specified by il 72.754Mbl(2) and (3) for which the initial reports will be made under paragraph (a) of this section." {
Section 72.4 would be revised as follows:
"Except where otherwise specified, all communications and reports....should be addressed to the Directer, Office of Nucle w 9:teri:1 :nd S:fcguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ATTN:
Document Control Desk. Washington, DC 20555-0001."
- 2. Impact on Licensees Correcting the error and the administrative change requiring the submittal of reports to NRC headquarters would not increase the regulatory burden on licensees.
Item 3 -- Modify El 72.1 and 72.2 to include spent fuel storage cask and , e delete superseded information l k- Regulatory Issue The purpose (5 72.1) and scope (5 72.2) sections of Part 72 were not modified when the Commission amended Part 72 in 1990 to include a process for providing a general license to a reactor licensee to store spent fuel in an independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI) at power reactor sites (Subpart K) and for the approval of spent fuel storage casks (Subpart L). Although the language in these sections may be read to include the general licensa provisions of subpart K, it does not reference the approval process for spent fuel storage casks in Subpart L. This rulemaking will make the purpose and scope sections more complete by specifically referencing the Subpart L cask approval process. This rulemaking will also delete information in the purpose and scope sections regarding the Federal interie storage program since the timeframe for its implementation has expired (61 FR 35935, July 9, 1996). l 1
p Preliminary Regulatory Analysis
- 1. Draft Rule Language Section 72.1 would be revised as follows: (new language is underlined)
"The regulations in this part establish requirements, procedures, and criteria for the issuance of licenses to receive, transfer, and possess power reactor spent fuel and other radioactive msterials associated with spent fuel storage in an independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI) and the terms and conditions under which the Commission will issue such licenses. , including 'icentec to the U.S. Ocp:rtment cf Energy (00E) for the prevision of net mere than 1900 metric ten cf cpent fuel capacity :t f:cilities net eened by the Federal Ccverrment en knu:ry 7,1983 fer the Federal i nterir ster:ge progra under Subtitle B Interir Stor:ge regr: o cf the Nuclear W:ste Pclicy ^ct Of 1982 ,
(NMP^). The regulations in this part also establish requirements, t procedures, and criteria for the issuance of licenses to DOE to receive, transfer, package, and possess power reactor spent fuel, high-level ; radioactive waste, and other radioactive materials associated with the spent fuel and high-level radioactive waste storage, in a monitored retrievable storage installation (MRS). Furthermore, the regulations in this part also establish requirements. procedures and criteria for the issuance of Certificates of Compliance approving spent fuel storage I casks." Section 72.2 would be revised as follows: (new language is underlined) g Delete i 72.2(e) -- superseded information regarding the Federal interim storage program. The existing 5 72.2(f) will become new I 72.2(e). Add a new paragraph (f) --
"(f) Certificates of Compliance approving the use of spent fuel storage casks shall be issued in accordance with the requirements of this part as stated in 6 72.236.."
- 2. Impact on Licensees There is no impact on licensees in making the purpose and scope sections of Part 72 comprehensive since no regulatory requirements are being
(- changed. Item 4 -- Requirement for capability for continuous monitoring for confinement storage systems (172.122(h)(4)) Regulatory Issue , Under current regulations, 5 72.122(h)(4) requires the capability for continuous monitoring of storage confinement systems. The meaning of
" continuous" is open to diffcrent interpretations and does not O
b 4
/ differentiate between monitoring requirements for wet and dry storage of l
( ]/ U spent fuel. Wet storage requires active heat removal systems that involve a monitoring which is " continuous" in the sense of uninterrupted. On the other hand, because of the passive nature of dry l storage, active heat removal systems are not needed and monitoring can l be less frequent. This rulemaking would clarify that the frequency of l monitoring can be different for wet and dry storage systems. l l Preliminary Regulatory Analysis
- 1. Draft Rule Language Section 72.122(h)(4) would be revised as follows: (new language is l
- underlined)
" Storage confinement systems must have the capability for continuous monitoring in a manner such that the licensee will be able to determine '
, when corrective action needs to be taken to maintain safe storage l conditions. For dry storage, periodic monitoring is sufficient provided that periodic monitoring is consistent with the cask design requirements. The monitoring period shall be based upon the cask design requirements"
- 2. Impact on Licensees D This revision is to clarify monitoring requirements for dry spent fuel
,[Q storage and would not change the burden for licensees. Item 5 -- Requirement Specifying Instrument and Control Systems for Monitoring Dry Spent Fuel Storage is Not Appropriate (5 72.122(i)). Regulatory Issue Section 72.122(i) requires that instrumentation and control systems be provided to monitor systems important to safety and does not distinguish between wet and dry 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 rulemaking will clarify that control systems are not needed for dry storage systems. Preliminary Reqelatory Analysis
- 1. Draft Rule language Section 72.122(i) would be revised as follows: (new language is underlined)
"(i) Instrumentation and control systems. Instrumentation and control systems for wet spent fuel storage must be provided to monitor systems that are important to safety over anticipated ranges for normal
,m V 5 I
l __ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . - - _ _ _ _ _ _
~ ~
, . l i
operation and off-normal operation. Those instruments and control ) [] systems that must remain operational under accident conditions must be ("j identified in the Safety Analysis Report. j Instrumentation systems for dry spent fuel storage casks must be ! provided in accordance with cask design requirements to monitor conditions that are important to safety over anticipated ranges for normal conditions and off-normal conditions. Systems that are required i under accident conditions must be identified in the Safety Analysis l Report."
- 2. Impact on the Licensees There would not be any change in regulatory burden for licensees in j l j l clarifying dry fuel storage monitoring requirements.
Item 6 -- Clarify Requirement for Dry Spent Fuel Storage Cask on Methods of Criticality Control (172.124(b)) Regulatory Issue Section 72.124(b) requires specific methods for criticality control, including the requirement that where solid neutron absorbing materials , are used, the design shall provide for positive means to verify their l continued efficacy. This requirement is appropriate for wet spent fuel j storage systems but not for dry spent fuel storage systems. The dry [,]i
\ spent fuel storage casks are sealed and it is not practical to penetrate l
l l the integrity of the cask to make the measurements for verifying the efficacy of neutron absorbing materials. Moreover, the potentially ! corrosive environment under wet storage conditions is not present in dry storage systems since an inert environment is maintained. This rulemaking will clarify that positive means for verifying the continued efficacy of solid neutron absorbing materials are net required for dry i storage systems. Preliminary Regulatory Analysis
- 1. Draft Rule Language Section 72.124(b) would be revised as follows: (new language is underlined)
" Methods of criticality control . When practicable the design of an l
ISFSI or MRS must be based on f avorable geometry, permanently fixed ' neutron absorbing materials (poisons), or both. Where solid neutron absorbing materials are used, the design shall provide for positive means to verify their continued efficacy except for dry spent fuel storage systems where it is determined that significant degradation of the neutron absorbinq materials cannot occur over the life of the facility."
\
j < m m ,s/ u - - I b 6 V R___.-________
'O 2. Impact on the Licensees
'There would be no impact on licensees from this clarification of requirements for dry spent fuel storage systems.
Item 7 -- Clarify Requirements in i 72.140(d) concerning previously Commission approved quality assurance program conforming to Appendix B of 10 CFR Part 50 Regulatory Issue Section 72.174 specifies that quality assurance (QA) records shall be maintained by or under the control of the licensee until the Commission terminates the license. However, 5 72.140(d) allows a holder of a Part 50 license to use its approved Part 50, Appendix B, QA program in place of the Part 72 QA requirements, including the requirement for QA records. Appendix B allows the licensee to determine what records will be considered permanent records, using Regulatory Guide 1.28. Thus, Part 50 licensees utilizing an Appendix B QA program could choose not to make permanent all records generated in support of Part 72 activities. This rulemaking will require such licensees to follow the Part 72 requirement to maintain QA records until termination of the license. Preliminary Regulatory Analysis
- 1. Draft Rule Lanquage Section 72.140(d) would be revised by adding the following sentence at the end of the first sentence: (new language is underlined)
"(d) Previously approved programs. A Commission-approved quality assurance program which satisfies the applicable criteria of Appendix B to Part 50 of this chapter and which is 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 utilizing an Appendix' B quality assurance program must meet the requi_rement of 5 72.174. Prior to first use, .... date of Commission approval."
- 2. Impact on Licenses All Part 72 licensees, including those who have adopted an Appendix B QA
, program, currently _ maintain the QA records which are prescribed in l_72.174 as permanent records. However, the maintenance of QA records beyond those required under Appendix B is voluntary on the part of ,
licensees who have adopted an Appendix B QA-program. Since there is no 1 assurance that.these additional records would continue to be maintained i in the future, NRC's regulatory analysis policy prescribes that for base ! case cost-benefit calculations, it is appropriate to give no credit for i those voluntary actions, and to view this as an incremental burden of the proposed regulatory action. The staff estimates that the 20 year O
'%,) 7 l l
L____ - l
i l l CN ( present worth cost to a reactor licensee to maintain all permanent records is on the order of $100,000 per licensee. This assumes an
) l average one-time cost of $40,000 for a vault or cabinet, an annual labor l
cost of $6000 to m?.intain the records, and an annual storage fee of l
$500. The annual costs are present worthed based on a 7 percent real l discount rate over a 20-year period which corresponds to the life of the license. Based on discussion with NRC staff directly involved in oversight of 5 72.174 requirements, it is estimated that the permanent i
ISFSI records represent no more than 5 percent of the total permanent records required to be maintained by a reactor licensee. Thus, it is estimated that We 20-year incremental burden resulting from this rule l change is on the order of $5000 per licensee. This figure is equally applicable to both reactor and non-reactor licensees storing spent fuel. l Given that there are about 40 licensees currently relying on the Appendix B QA program in lieu of 5 72.142, the incremental burden for the affected licensee population is approximately $200,000. l Alternatively, for sensitivity analysis purposes, it is useful to l recognize that this new regulatory requirement is currently being met l l under existing licensee practices, and in terms of real dollar outlay l there is no change in burden associated with this regulatory action. l This presumes, however, that absent this proposed change, those i licensees utilizing an Appendix B QA program would continue to make l permanent all records generated in support of Part 72 ac'.. 'ities. l 1
/' Item 8 -- Remove natural or depleted uranium metal used in storage cask l shielding from Part 40 licensing requirements l l
l Regulatory Issue The use of natural or depleted uranium in shipping casks is not subject to the Part 40 licensing requirements for source material under 5 40.13(::)(6) . However, unlike for shipping casks, current licensing l requirements do apply to natural and depleted uranium used in spent fuel storage casks. Currently, natural or depleted uranium is not used in the design of storage-casks but it is anticipated that designers may i want to use this material in future cask designs. The purpose of this rulemaking is to make the use of natural and depleted uranium available for storage casks under i 40.13(c)(6) without subjecting that use to the licensing requirements of Part 40. l Preliminary Regulatory Analysis ! 1. Draft Rule Lanquaqe Section 40.13(c)(6) would be revised as follows (new language is underlined): I
"(c) Any person is exempt from the regulation in this part and from the requirements for a license set forth in Section 62 of the Act to the G
} 8 I
U.. a
. \
1 i extent that such person receives, possess, uses, or transfers: ....
....(6) Natural or depleted uranium metal used as shielding constituting part of any shipping container or spent fuel storace cask: ....
- 2. Impact on the Licensees
"" W This revision is intended to eliminate the need for licensees to obtain specific authority for use of natural or depleted uranium in spent fuel storage casks. This would provide burden relief for both licensees and the staff since requests for exemptions or applications for a Part 40 license would not be necessary.
Item 9 -- Reporting Requirements for Specific Events and Conditions -- 1' 5 72.75 Regulatory Issue Section 72,75 contains reporting requirements for specific events and conditions, including the requirement in 5 72.75(d)(2) for a follow-up written report for certain types of emergency and non-emergency notifications. Section 72.75(d)(2) also contains a brief description of the type of information to be included in the required report. . Staff's experience has been that this brief description has not been sufficient to elicit sufficient information for the staff to complete its review of a report, necessitating follow-up. contacts with the licansee to secure additional information. Many requirements for the content of reports appropriate for reporting ISFSI or MRS events and conditions are found in 5 50.73(b) which staff has used as guidance. The proposed rulemaking would place appropriate 5 50.73(b) requirements in 5 72.75(d)(2) and thereby clearly inform licensees of the information necessary for the staff's review of a report. Preliminary Regulatory Analysis
- 1. Draft Rule t anquage Section 72.75(d)(2) would be revised as follows: (new language is underlined)
Delete 55 72.75(d)(2)(i), (ii), (iii), (iv), (v), and (vi).
"(2) Written reoort. Each licensee who makes an initial report required by paragraph (a) or (b) of this section shall_ submit a written follow-up report within 30 days of the initial report. Written reports prepared pursuant to other regulations may be submitted to fulfill this requirement if the reports contain all of the necessary information and the appropriate distribution is made. These written reports must be sent to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Document Control Desk, Washington, DC 20555-0001, with a copy to the appropriate NRC Regional Office listed in Appendix 0 of 10 CFR Part 20. These reports must include the following:
9
(1) A brief abstract describing the major occurrences during the event, including all component or system failures that contributed to the event ) ' 'O) i. and significant corrective acticn taken or planned to prevent { recurrence. (2)(i) A clear, specific, narrative description of what occurred so that knowledgeable readers conversant with the desian of ISFSI or MRS, but not familiar with the details of a particular facility, can understand the complete event. (ii) The narrative description must include the following specific information as appropriate for the particular event: (A) ISFSI or MRS operating conditions before the event, j (6) Status of structures, components, or systems that were inoperable at l the st3rt of the event and that contributed to the event. (C) Dates and approximate times of occurrences. (D) The cause of each component or system failure or personnel error, if known. (E) The failure mode, mechanism, and effect of each failed component, if known. (F) For failures of components with multiple functions, include a list i of systems or secondary functions that were also affected. (G) For 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 (applies to wet spent fuel systems storage only). (H) The method of discovery of each component or system failure or procedural error. (I)(1) 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: (i) Whether the error was a cognitive error (e.g., failure to recognize the actual facility condition, failure to realize which systems should be functioning, failure to recognize the true nature of the event) or a i procedural error; (ii) Whether-the error was contrary to an approved procedure, was a direct resuit of an error in an approved procedure, or was associated with an activity or task that was not covered by an approved procedure: (iii) Any unusual characteristics of the work location (e.g., heat, noise) that directly contributed to the error: and (iv) The type of personnel involved (i.e., contractor personnel, 3 l utility-licensed operator, utility nonlicensed operator, other utility l personnel). J (J) Automatically and manually initiated safety system responses (wet I spent fuel storage systems only). l 1 (K) The manufacturer and model number (or other identification) of each l component thtt failed during the event. (L) The quantities, and chemical and physical forms of the spent fuel or HLW involved. (3) An assessment of the safety consequences and implications of the event. This assessment must include the availability of other systems or 10 l l t
p components that could have performed the same function as the components and systems that failed during the event. (4) A description of any corrective actions plann_ed as a result of the event. including those to reduce the probability of similar events occurring in the future. (5) Reference to any previous similar events at the same plant that are known to the licensee. (6) The name and telephone number of a person within the licensee's organization who is knowledgeable about the event and can provide additional information concerning the event and the plant's , characteristics." j , 2. Impact on the Licensees ; Licensees currently submit follow-up reports for specific events and conditions in accordance with 5 72.75(d)(2). Upon review, the staff ! often requests, via telephone calls and correspondence, that ' l supplemental information be submitted to provide an adequate description i of the event. The revised requirements in i 72.75(d)(2) will provide clarification of what information is necessary in the initial submittal. Thus, the revised reporting requirements are an increase in the licensee ; burden for preparation of the initial report. On balance, however, the ! total licensee burden under the revised requirements would be similar to ! l [( i the current situation where the initial report is supplemented by requests for additional information by the staff. L III. Common Elements for Items 1 Through 9 OGC Legal Analysis. 0GC has no legal objection to this proposed rulemaking. Assuming that i
- Item 8 is supported by the planned safety analysis report and 1 environmental assessment, 0GC does not anticipate any legal impediments i to promulgation of the contemplated rule.
I Backfit Analysis The NRC staff has determined that the backfit rule,172.62, does not apply to this Direct Final Rule, and therefore a backfit analysis is not required. Agreement Sta'te Implementation Problems, i No problems from the proposed amendment have been identified that would adversely affect the Agreement States. 11 i
r , s . 1 l ^ Supportina Documents l l (v It is anticipated that an environmental assessment and Safety Analysis Report will be prepared in support of Item 8. Also, OMB clearance l package will be prepared for this rulemaking. l Resources Needed. 1 l It is anticipated that 0.85 FTEs will be needed to complete this action. No contractor support dollars will bc expended. These resources are included in the current budget. Lead Office Staff and Staff from Supportina Offices. Project Manager: Mark Au, RES User office cognizant staff: Francis Young, NMSS Michael Lesar, ADM E. Neil Jensen, 0GC Steering Group /Workina Group. A steering group will not be used on this rulemaking. Enhanced Public Participation. p
! The rulemaking will use the FedWorld Bulletin Board to notify the public that a Direct Final Rule has been issued. Comments can still be made
! during the 30-day comment period before the final rule becomes effective. EDO or Commission Issuance. No significant comments are anticipated on this rulemaking, therefore, RES recommends that the ED0 9 sue a " Direct Final Rule" for the proposed changes. This action does not constitute a significant question of policy, and falls within the ED0's authority. A Direct Final Rule is issued as final but still allows fnr a public comment period. If no significant issue is raised during this period, the rule becomes final at the specified date. If a significant issue is raised, the Direct Final Rule will revert to a proposed rule. This process should minimize both time and resources expended for this action. Schedule. The schedule is expressed in terms of time from approval of the rulemaking plan. Rulemaking package for Office concurrence 4 months Rulemaking package to ED0 6 months Direct Final Rule published ind l
,-~s OMB Clearance Package submitted to OMB 8 months / \
Q 12 : i w-_-______________-________
% + " ** % hb0 - l
. BA, RULEMAKING ISSUE (NEGATIVE CONSENT)
March 28, 1997 SECi-97-069 FOR: The Commissioners FROM: L. Joseph Callan, Executive Director for Operations
SUBJECT:
RULEMAKING PLAN: MISCELLANE0US CHANGES TO 10 CFR PART 72 AND AMENDMENT T0 10 CFR PART 40 TO REMOVE NATURAL OR DEPLETED URANIUM USED IN STORAGE CASK SHIELDING FROM PART 40 LICENSING REQUIREMENTS PURPOSE: To inform the Commission that the ED0 intends to sign the enclosed Rulemaking Plan to amend certain sections in 10 CFR Part 72 to correct several inconsistencies and to clarify certain sections. The rulemaking would also amend the regulations to remove from the licensing requirements of 10 CFR Part 40 the use of natural or depleted uranium in dry spent fuel storage casks. ISSUE: The Commission's licensing requirements for the independent storage of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste are specified in 10 CFR Part 72. Experience in applying Part 72 has indicated that it is not adequate in some respects and that certain additions and clarifications to the rule are necessary. This rulemaking would make eight miscellaneous changes to , Part 72, and also would extend the exemption from licensing requirements for ' shipping containers using natural or depleted uranium as shielding (5 40.13(c)(6)) to storage casks using natural or depleted uranium as shielding. SECY NOTE: TO BE MADE PUBLICLY AVAILABLE WHEN THE FINAL SRM IS MADE AVAILABLE. CONTACT: M. L. Au, WMB/DRA/RES IN THE ABSENCE OF INSTRUCTIONS TO THE ' CONTRARY, SECY WILL NOTIFY THE STAFF ON (301) 415-6181 TUESDAY, APRg 15, 1977 T!!AT Tile COMMISSION, BY NEGATIVE CONSENT, ASSENTS TO THE ACTION PROPOSED IN TilIS PAPER. I L & 50 00 m 18g1 i
4 The Commissioners 2 , I 1 DISCUSSION: The Spent Fuel Project Office, NMSS, in a letter dated May 9,1996, proposed several changes to 10 CFR Part 72 together with a list of 18 miscellaneous I items. In response to this request, RES initiated six rulemaking actions ti,at were approved by the EDO on August 13, 1996. This rulemaking plan addresses a . group of miscellaneous items that are proposed for implementation by a direct final rule. The items included in this rulemaking action are as follows:
. An amendment to Section 72.44(d)(3) would permit reactor licensees to submit the annual dry cask storage effluent report to the NRC at the same time as the annual reactor operations effluent report.
. An administrative change to 5 72.4 would provide that, except where otherwise specified, all communications and reports be addressed to NRC's Document Control Desk rather than to the Director, Office of ,
Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards. In addition, 5 72.216(c) would . be changed to correct improper references.
. Amendments to the purpose (172.1) and scope (5 72.2) would m'ake these sections more complete by specifically referencing the spent fuel storage cask approval process and also delete information in the purpose !
and scope sections regarding the Federal interim storage program since j the time frame for its implementation has expired (61 FR 35935, July 9, 1996).
. An amendment to 5 72.122(h)(4) would clarify that the monitoring requirements can be different for wet and dry storage systems. l
. An amendment to 5 72.122(i) would clarify that, unlike wet spent fuel ;
storage, control systems are not needed for dry storage systems, since no active systems are involved. i
. An amendment to 5 72.124(b) would clarify that positive means for verifying the continued efficacy of solid neutron absorbing materials are not required for dry storage systems, where the efficacy is demonstrated at the outset.
t l . An amendment to 5 72140(d) would require reactor licensees to maintain l QA records pertaining to storage of spent fuel under Part 72 until l termination of the license, even if those records were generated under a l previously Commission approved quality assurance program conforming to Appendix B of Part 50. l l
h.,.,* m The Commissioners 3 An amendment to 5 40.13(c)(6) would remove the use of natural or depleted uranium in storage casks from the licensing requirements of Part 40. I
. Event reporting requirements in 5 72.75(d)(2) have been found to be incomplete. As a result, staff has frequently needed to request l additional information from licensees subsequent to receiving event . ._
l reports. Part 72 would be amended to clearly inform licensees of the information necessary for the staff's review of a licensee's report. l COORDINATION: The Office of the General Counsel has no legal objection to this Rulemaking Pl an . The Office of the Chief Financial Officer has no objection to the resource estimates contained in the rulemaking plan. The Office of the Chief l Information Officer has reviewed the rulemaking plan for information and technology and information management implications and concurs in it, i However, the plan suggests possible information collection requirements that l must be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget prior to. publication 1 of the rule proposed in the rulemaking plan. l RECOMMENDATION: Note that it is my intention to implement the Rulemaking Plan within 10 days l from the date of this paper unless otherwise directed by the Commission. 1 s L. J aeph Callan Executive Director for Operations ' l
Enclosure:
Rulemaking Plan 1 i DISTRIBUTION: Cormnissioners OGC ' OCAA OIG OPA OCA CIO CFO EDO SECY
je
- 4 ,
ENCLOSURE RULEMAKING PLAN l l l 3 I l I l 1 l 3
l i t. RULEMAKING PLAN FOR MISCELLANE0US. CHANGES TO 10 CFR PART 72 AND AMENDMENT TO 10 CFR PART 40 l TO REMOVE NATURAL OR DEPLETED URANIUM USED IN STORAGE CASK SHIELDING FROM PART 40 LICENSING REQUIREMENTS Lead Office: Office of Nuclear Regulatorv Eqsearch ! Staff
Contact:
Mark Au, WMB/DRA/RES Concurrences:
'D.
t-c , Norris~on, RES 2
-Date M//h?7
'l C. Papefiell6 NMSS
/4014 Dat(
/[f7 l i
! M l 1Y R/M. Scroggins, ACF0 2lN/9)
'Date' i
l t
$) Aht k7 >w 4J alan CI Date M0 yk7
/B J.pettet, IRM / 'Date
&J24Nfr Mf Oms.
[._! {' . L. , ( . a: . -:!hlY/ W. J. 0lmstead, OGC' Date
? . .
Approval: ' 3' ' Date L.J.glian,E00
1, < . 03/27/97 Rulemaking Plan Miscellaneous Changes to Part 72 and Amendment to Part 40 to l Remove Natural or Depleted Uranium Used in Staras Cask Shieldinq j from Part 40 Licensing Requirement.t I. Regulatory Issue The Commission's licensing requirements for the independent storage of ) spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste are specified in l 10 CFR Part 72. Experience in applying Part 72 has indicated that it is l not adequate in some respects and that certain additions and ! clarifications to the rule .are necessary. By memorandum dated May 9, 1996, the Spent fuel Project Office, NMSS, proposed several changes to Part 72 together with a list of 18 miscellaneous items. In response to this request, RES initiated six rulemaking actions that were approved by the EDO. Five of the rulemaking actions are discussed in other rulemaking plans. This rulemaking plan addresses a group of miscellaneous items which would correct several inconsistencies and provide clarification to certain sections of Eart 72. This rulemaking would also remove the use of natural or depleted uranium in storage casks from the licensing requirements of 10 CFR Part 40. This would be an extension cf the shipping container exemption in 5 40.13(c)(6). II. Proposed Chanaes Item 1 -- Requirement for Submittal of Dry Cask Storage Effluent Report
-- (6 72.44)
Reculatory issue Current regulations in 5 72.44(d)(3), " License Conditions," require submittal of a dry cask storage effluent report to the appropriate NRC regional office within the first 60 days of each year. Section 50.36a(a)(2), " Technical specifications on effluents from nuclear power reactors," requires that a similar report be submitted to the Commission once each year specifying liquid and gaseous effluents from reactor operations. The proposed revision would permit reactor licensees to submit their dry cask storage effluent report to the NRC once each year at the same time as the effluent report from reactor operations. 1
r 7 1 i Preliminary Regulatory Analysis
- 1. Draft Rule Language 9
Section 72.44(d)(3) would be revised as follows (new language is underlined): i "An annual report be submitted to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
- . Commission, ATTN Document Cont _ro_1 Desk, Washington. DC 20555 with a l copy to the appropriate regional office specified in appendix A of l Part 73 of this chapter, eith a copy tc the Director, Office of Nuc) car !
l Material Safety nd Safegu:rds, U.S. "uc' car Regul:tery Ccris:icn, i W: hingten, DC 20555, withi , 50 day; after knuary 1, cf c ch ycar, ! specifying the quantity of each of the principal radionuclides released to the environment in liquid and in gaseous effluents during the i previous 12 months of operation and such other information as may 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 the Commission may obtain from the licensee or others, the Commission may from time to time i require the licensee to take such action as the Commission deems ; l appropriate." l
- 2. Impact on the Licensees
! Reactor licensees will obtain a small benefit since both annual reports l may be submitted at the same time to the NRC. Item 2 -- Requirement for making initial and written reports (il 72.4 and 72.216) Regulatory issue An administrative change needs to be made to 5 72.4 to provide that, except where otherwise specified, all communications and reports be 4 addressed to NRC's Document Control Desk r'4ther than to the Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards. At present, three i regulations govern the submission of written reports under Part 72: l (1) 5 72.75, (2) 5 72.216(b), and (3) 5 50.72(b)(2)(vii) (which is referenced in 572.216(a)). Under 5 72.75 a report is sent to the Document Control Desk; however, the two other paragraphs direct that the report be seat as instructed in 5 72.4 which specifies that reports be addressed to the Director, Office of Nucl. ear Material Safety and i Safeguards. To athieve consistency in the NRC a'ddressee for Part 72 l reports, 5 72.4 is being revised to instruct that reports be sent to the l Document Control Desk. Directing licensing correspondence to the NRC's ! Document Control Desk will ensure proper docketing and distribution. Also, 5 72.216(c) is being changed to correct an error. The present regulation references 55 72.75(a)(2) and (3). The reference should be to 55 72.751bl(2) and (3). 2
i i Preliminar_y Regulatory Analysis
- 1. Draft Rule language Section 72.216(c) would be revised and corrected as follows: (new language is underlined)
"The general licensee shall make...., except for the events specified by 55 72.75(44(b)J2) and (3) for which the initial reports will be made under paragraph (a) of this section."
Section 72.4 would be revised as follows:
"Except where otherwise specified, all communications and a reports....should be addressed to the Ofrecter, Of# ice Of Nuc! car Material nr.d Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ATTN:
Document Control Desk. Washington, DC 20555-0001." ; 1
- 2. Impact on Licensees Correcting the error and the administrative change requiring the j submittal of reports to NRC headquarters would not increase the !
regulatory burden on licensees. ' Item 3 -- Modify El 72.1 and 72.2 to include spent fuel storage cask and delete superseded information Regulatory Issue The purpose '(5 72.1) and scope (5 72.2) sections of Part 72 were not , modified when the Commission amended Part 72 in 1990 to include a ' process' for providing a general license to a reactor licensee to store spent fuel in an independent spent fuel storage installation (13FSI) at power reactor sites (Subpart K) and for the approval of spent fuel l storage casks (Subpart L). Although the language in these sections may he read to include the general license provisions of subpart K, it does not reference the approval process for spent fuel storage casks in Subpart L. This rulemaking will make the purpose and scope sections more complete by specifically referencing the Subpart L cask approval process. This rulemaking will also delete information in the purpose and scope sections regarding the Federal interim storage program since l the timeframe for its implementation has expired (61 FR 35935, July 9, 1996). l 3
Preliminary Regulatory Analysis .
- 1. Draft Rule Language 4
Section 72.1 would be revised as follows: (new language is underlined)
"The regulations in this part establish requirements, procedures, and criteria for the issuance of licenses to receive, transfer, and possess power reactor spent fuel and other radioactive materials associated with spbnt ' fuel storage in an independent spent fuel storage installation ;
(ISFSI) and the terms and conditions under which the Commission will i issue such licenses. , i ncluding 'icence to the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) for the previsien of not more th:n !?00 metric tent of spent fuel capacity at faci'itic: not c';:ned by the Federal Ccver ment en January 7,1983 for the Federal interi Sterege program under Subtitic B Interi- Sterage "regram of the Nuclear Watte Policy Sct of 1982 (NWPS). The regulations in this part also establish requirements, , procedures, and criteria for the issuance of licenses to DOE to receive, ' transfer, package, and possess power reactor spent fuel, high-level radioactive waste, and other radioactive materials associated with the spent fuel and high-level radioactive waste storage, in a monitored retrievable storage installation (MRS). Furthermore, the regulations in l this part 'also establish requirements, procedures and criteria for the i issuance of Certificates of Compliance apprcving spent fuel storage casks." Section 72.2 would be revised as follows: (new language is underlined) ! Delete 5 72.2(e) -- superseded information regarding the Federal interim l storage program. The existing 5 72.2(f) will become new 5 72.2(e), ; Add a new paragraph (f) --
"(f) Certificates of Compliance approving the use of spent fuel storage {
casks shall be issued in accordance with the requirements of this part i as stated in 5 72 236." '
- 2. Impact on Licensees There is no impact on licensees in making the purpose and scope sections of Part 72 comprehensive since no regulatory requirements are being ;
changed. Item 4 -- Requirement for capability for continuous monitoring for confinement storage systems (5 72.122(h)(4)) Regulatory issue Under current regulations, 5 72.122(h)(4) requires the capability for continuous monitoring of storage confinement systems. The meaning of
" continuous" is open to different interpretations and does not 4
w__.____-__-____-____________ . _ _ - _ _
t* differentiate between monitoring requirements for wet and dry storage of spent fuel. Wet storage requires active heat removal systems that involve a monitoring which is " continuous" in the sense of L uninterrupted. On the other hand, because of the passive nat'ure of dry storage, active heat removal systems are not needed and monitoring can be less frequent. This rulemaking would clarify that the frequency of monitoring can be different for wet and dry storage systems. Preliminary Regulatory Analysis
- 1. Draft Rule Language Section 72.122(h)(4) would be revised as follows: (new language is underlined)
" Storage confinement systems must have the capability for continuous monitoring in a manner such that the licensee will be able to determine when corrective action needs to be taken to maintain safe storage conditions. For dry storage, periodic monitoring is sufficient provided that periodic monitoring is consistent with the cask design requirements. The monitoring period shall be based upon the cask design i
requirements."
- 2. Impact on Licensees '
This revision is to clarify monitoring requirements for dry spent fuel storage and would not change the burden for licensees. Item 5 -- Requirement Specifying Instrument and Control Systems for Monitoring Dry Spent Fuel Storage is Not Appropriate (6 72.122(i)). Regulatory issue Section 72.122(i) requires that instrumentation and control systems be provided to monitor systems important to safety and does not distinguish between wet and dry 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 rulemaking will clarify that control systems are not needed for dry storage systems. Preliminary Regulatory Analysis
- 1. Draft' Rule Language Section 72.122(i) would be revised as follows: (new language is underlined)
~
I "(i) Instrumentation and control systems. Instrumentation and control systems for wet spent fuel storage must be provided to monitor systems that are important to safety over anticipated ranges for normal l 5
operation and off-normal operation. Those instruments and control systems that must remain operational under accident conditions must be identified in the Safety Analysis Report. t Instrumentation systems for dry spent fuel storage casks must be provided in accordance with cask desian requirements to monitor conditions that are important to safety over anticipated ranges for normal conditions and off-normal conditions. Systems that are required under accident conditions must be identified in the Safety Analysis Report."
- 2. Impact on the Licensees There would not be any change in regulatory burden for licensees in clarifying dry fuel storage monitoring requirements.
Item 6 -- Clarify Requirement for Dry Spent Fuel Storage Cask on Methods I of Criticality Control ($ 72.124(b)) Regulatory Issue j i Section 72.124(b) requires specific methods for criticality control, l including the requirement that where solid neutron absorbing materials ' l are used, the design shall 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 dry spent fuel storage casks are sealed and it is not practical to penetrate the integrity of the cask to make the measurements for verifying the effiucy of neutron absorbing materials. Moreover, the potentially corrosive environment under wet storage conditions is not present in dry storage sy.tems since an inert environment is maintained. This rulemaking will clarify that positive means for verifying the continued I efficacy M solid neutron absorbing materials are not required for dry ) storage systems. Preliminary Regulatory Analysis
- 1. Draft Rule Language Section 72.124(b) would be revised as follows: (new language is underlined) l l " Methods of criticality control. When practicable the desion of an ISFSI or MRS must be based on favorable geometry, permanent.y fixed neutron absorbing materials (poisons), or both. Where solid neutron absorbing materials are used, the design shall provide for positive '
means of verifying their continued efficacy. For dry spent fuel storage systems. the continued efficacy may be confirmed by demonstration before i use and an analysis showing that significant degradation of the neutron ! absorbina materials cannot occur over the life of the facility. 6
l,. . . L 1 l l 2. Impact on the Licensees There would be no impact on licensees from this clarification of requirements' for dry spent fuel storage systems. ( Item 7 -- Clarify Requirements in i 72.140(d) concerning previously Commission approved quality assurance program conforming to Appendix B of 10 CFR Part 50
.Requiatory Issue l Section 72.174 specifies that quality assurance (QA) records shall be maintained by or under the cortrol of the licensee until the Commission terminates the license. However, 5 72.140(d) allows a holder of a Part 50 license to use its approved Part 50, Appendix B, QA program in place of the Part 72 QA requirements, including the requirement for QA records. Appendix B allows the licensee to determine what records will l be considered permanent records, using Regulatory Guide 1.28. Thus, Part 50 licensees utilizing an Appendix B QA program could choose not to make permanent all records generated in support of Part 72 activities.
! This rulemaking will require such licensees to follow the Part 72 requirement to maintain QA records until termination of the license. Preliminary Regulatory Analysis
- 1. Draft Rule Language l
Section 72.140(d) would be revised by adding-the following sentence at i the end of the first sentence: (new language is underlined)
"(d) Previously approved programs. A Commission-approved quality assurance program which satisfies the a'pplicable criteria of Appendix B to Part 50 of this chapter and which is established, maintained, and l executed with regard to an ISFSI will be accepted as satisfying the l
requirements of paragraph (b) of this section except that a licensee utilizinq an Appendix B quality assurance program must meet the l requirement of 5 72.174. Prior to first use, .... date of Commission approval."
- 2. Impact on Licenses All Part 72 licensees, including those who have adopted an Appendix B QA program, currently maintain the QA records which are prescribed in 5 72.174 as permanent records. However, the maintenance of QA records beyond those required under Appendix B is voluntary on the part of licensees who have adopted an Appendix B QA program. Since there is no assurance that these additional records would continue to be maintained in the future, NRC's regulatory analysis policy prescribes that for base case cost-benefit calculations, it is appropriate to give no credit for those voluntary actions, and to view this as an incremental burden of ;
the proposed regulatory action. The staff estimates that the 20-year ! 7 ; l
l 1 present worth cost to a reactor licensee to maintain all permanent
- records is on the order of $100,000 per licensee. This assumes an l average one-time cost of $40,000 for a vault or cabinet, an annual labor l cost of $600'0 to maintain the records, and an annual storage fee of l $500. The present worth of the annual costs is based on a 7 percent l real discount rate over a 20-year period which corresponds to the life r of the license. Based on discussion with NRC staff directly involved in l oversight of 5 72.174 requirements, it is estimated that the permanent l Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI) records represent no l more than 5 percent of the total permanent records required to be l maintained by a reactor licensee. Thus, it is estimated that the l 20-year incremental burden resulting from this rule cnange is on the
! order of $5000 per licensee. This figure is equally applicable to both i reactor and non-reactor licensees storing spent fuel. Given that there are about 40 licensees currently relying on the Appendix B QA program in lieu of 5 72.142, the incremental burden for the affected licensee population is approximately $200,000. Alternatively, 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, those licensees utilizing an Appendix B QA program would continue to make permanent all records generated in support of Part 72 activities. Item 8 -- Remove natural or depleted uranium metal used in storage cask shielding from Part 40 licensing requirements Regulatory Issue-The use of natural or depleted uranium in shipping casks is not subject to the Part 40 licensing requirements for source material under 540.13(c)(6). However, unlike for shipping casks, current licensing requirements do apply to natural and depleted uranium used in spent fuel storage casks. Currently, natural or depleted uranium is not used in the design of storage casks but it is anticipated that designers may want to use this material in future cask designs. The purpose of this rulemaking is to make the use of natural and depleted uranium available for storage casks under i 40.13(c)(6) without subjecting that use to the , licensing requirements of Part 40. Preliminary Regulatory Analysis
- 1. Draft Rule Language Section 40.13(c)(6) would be revised as follows (new language is underlined):
"(c) Any person is exempt from the regulation in this part and from the requirements for a license set forth in Section 62 of the Act to the 8
- -_--_-___-.__--.a__--.n_ _ - - . - - _ _ _ - - - _ . _ _ _ . _ . _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ . - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ . _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _
i.. , l l extent that such person receives, possess, uses, or transfers: .... l ....(6) Natural or depleted uranium metal used as shielding constituting i part of any shipping container or spent fuel storage cask: Provided, l That: ' l (i) The shipping container or spent fuel storage cask is conspicuously _ l and legibly impressed with the legend " CAUTION - RADI0 ACTIVE SHIELDING - l URANIUM"; and" '
- 2. Impact on the Licensees i This revision is intended to eliminate the need for licensees to obtain l specific authority for use of natural or depleted uranium in spent fuel l storage casks. This would provide burden relief for both licensees and
! the staff since requests for exemptions or applications for a Part 40 license would not be necessary. Item 9 -- Reporting Requirements for Specific Events and Conditions -- 6 72.75 Regulatory Issue
)
l Section 72.75 contains reporting requirements for specific events and l conditions, including the requirement in 5 72.75(d)(2) for a follow-up written report for certain types of emergency and non-emergency l notifications. Section 72.75(d)(2) also contains a brief description of the type of information to be included in the required report. Staff's experience has been that this brief description has not been sufficient L to elicit sufficient information for the staff to complete its review of
- a report, necessitating follow-up contacts with the licensee to secure j additional information. Many requirements for the content of reports t
appropriate for reporting Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI) or Monitored Retrievable Storage (MRS) events and conditions are found in 5 50.73(b) which staff has used as guidance. The proposed l rulemaking would place appropriate 5 50.73(b) requirements in
- i 72.75(d)(2) and thereby clearly inform licensees of the information l necessary for the staff's review of a report.
Preliminary Regulatory Analysis l
- 1. Draft Rule Language
'Section 72.75(d)(2) would be revised as follows: (new language is underlined)
Delete 55 72.75(d)(2)(1), (ii), (iii), (iv), (v), and (vi).
"(2) Written report. Each licensee who makes an initial report required
.by paragraph (a) or (b) of this section shall submit a written follow-up report within 30 days of the initial report. Written reports prepared pursuant to other regulations may be submitted to fulfill this
! 9
.- .- l l
1 5 requirement if the reports contain all of the necessary information and ! the appropriate distribution is made. These written reports must be l sent to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Document Control Desk, Washington, DC 20555-0001, with a copy to the appropriate NRC Regional Office listed in Appendix D of 10 CFR Part 20. These reports must j include the following: I
- 11) 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 or planned to prevent recurrence.
(2)(i) A clear, specific, narrative description of what occurred so that knowledgeable readers conversant with the design of ISFSI or MRS, but not familiar with the details of a particular facility, can understand the complete event. (ii) The narrative description must include the following specific information as appropriate for the particular event: (A) ISFSI or MRS operatinq 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. )
(C) Dates and approximate _ times of occurrences. (D) The cause of each component or system failure or personnel error, if known. I (E) The failure mode, mechanism, and effect of each failed component, if known. (F) For failures of components with multiple functions, include a list of systems or secondary functions that were also affected. (G) For 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 (applies to wet. spent fuel systems storage only). (H) The method of discovery of each component or system failure or procedural error. (1)(1) 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 discussy (i) Whether the error was a cognitive error (e.g., failure to recognize the actual facility condition, failure to realize which s_ystems should be functioning, failure to recognize the true nature of the event) or_a procedural error: (ii) Whether the error was contrary to an approved procedure, was a direct result of an error in an approved procedure, or was associated ! with an activity or task that was not covered by an approved procedure: l (iii) Any unusual characteristics of the work location (e.g., heat, i noise) that directly contributed to the error; and I (iv) The type of personnel involved (i.e., contractor personnel, utility-licensed operator, utility nonlicensed operator, other utility personnel). (J) Automatically and manually initiated safety system responses (wet spent fuel storage systems only). 10
. l l
(K) The manufacturer and model number'(or other identification) of each component that failed during the event. (L) The quantities. and chemical and physical forms of the spent fuel or 1 HLW involved. (3) An assessment of the safety consequences and implications of the event. This assessment must include the availability of other systems or - components that could have performed the same function as the components and systems that failed during the event. 1 (4) A description of any corrective actions planned as a result of the event. including those to reduce the probability of similar events occurring in the future. (5) Reference to any previous similar events at the same plant that are known to the licensee. l (6) The name and telephone number of a person within the licensee's 1 organization who is knowledgeable about the event and can provide additional information concerning the event and the plant's characteristics." l
- 2. Impact on the Licensees j l
Licensees currently submit follow-up reports for specific events and I conditions in accordance with 5 72.75(d)(2). Upon review, the staff l often requests, via telephone calls and correspondence, that ' supplemental information be submitted to provide an adequate description , of the event. The revised requirements in 5 72.75(d)(2) will provide ! clarification of what information is necessary in the initial submittal. ' Thus, the revised reporting requirements are an increase in the licensee ; burden for preparation of the initial report. On balance, however, the l total licensee burden under the revised requirements would be similar to the current situation where the initial report is supplemented by requests for additional information by the staff. III. Common Elements for Items 1 Through 9 OGC Legal . Anal _ysis. 0GC has no legal objection to this proposed rulemaking. Assuming that item 8 is supported by the planned safety analysis report and ' environmental assessment, OGC does not anticipate any legal impediments to promulgation cf the contemplated rule. l Backfit Analysis. The NRC staff has determined that the backfit rule, 5 72.62, does not apply to this Direct Final Rule, and therefore a backfit analysis is not required. 11 t L-_--_---- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ - - - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- - - - - - - -
Agreement State Implementation Problems. No problems from the proposed amendment have been identified that would adversely affect the Agreement States. Supportina Documents. It is anticipated that an environmental assessment and Safety Analysis Report will be prepared in support of Item 8. . Also, OMB clearance ' l package will be prepared for this rulemaking. ~- Resources Needed. It is anticipated that 0.85 FTEs will be needed to complete this action. No contractor support dollars will be expended. These resources are included in th'e current budget. Lead Office Staff and Staff from Supportina Offices. Project Manager: Mark Au, RES User office cognizant staff: Francis Young, NMSS Michael Lesar, ADM E. Neil Jensen, 0GC Steerino Group /Workina Group. A steering group will not be used on this rulemaking. Enhanced Public Participation. The rulemaking will use the FedWorld Bulletin Board to notify the public that a Direct Final Rule has been issued. Comments can still be made during the 30-day comment period before the final rule becomes effective. EDO or Commission Issuance. No significant comments are anticipated on this rulemaking, therefore, RES recommends that the'E00 issue a " Direct Final Rule" for the proposed l changes. This action does not constitute a significant question of policy, and falls within the ED0's authority. A Direct Final Rule is issued as final but still allows for a public comment period. If no significant issue is raised during this period, the rule becomes final at the specified date. If a significant issue is raised, the Direct Final Rule will revert to a proposed rule. This process should minimize both timp and resources expended for this action. ' l 12 w -_- . _ - - - - - - - - - - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - A
t i e 1 Schedule. l The schedule is expressed in terms of time from approval of the I rulemaking plan. Rulemaking package for Office concurrence 4 months / 7' Rulemaking package to ED0 6 months c Direct Final Rule published and ; OMB Clearance Package submitted to OMB 8 months -- l l l l 13 l l I l _ - - - - - _ - _ - - _ - - - - - - - - - - - . . _ _ - - - - - - - - . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- ----J}}