ML20247P548
| ML20247P548 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 05/07/1998 |
| From: | Greeves J NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | Cool D NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9805280044 | |
| Download: ML20247P548 (5) | |
Text
.. ' 4 Krc p 4 UNITED STATES 3
- j. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2 WASHINGTON, D.C. 206 6 0001
/- ,
May 7, 1998 MEMORANDUM TO: Donald A. Cool, Director Division of industrial and Medical Nuclear Safety, NMSS FROM: John T. Greeves, Director D Division of Waste Management, NMSS
SUBJECT:
REVIEW OF APPLICABLE REGULATIONS POTENTIALLY IMPACTED BY CHANGES TO 10 CFR 50.59 in response to your memorandum of April 21,1998, I am providing information on the items requested.
- 1. Review the applicable regulations containing language similar to the existing language in 10 CFR 50.59 andi'lentify what classes of changes are authorized. For example, classes of changes include procedures, processes, design, hardware, and personnel.
For high level waste (HLW),10 CFR Part 60.44 contains language similar to Part 50.59 as follows:
9 60.44 Changes, tests, and experiments.-
(a)(1) Following authorization to receive and possess source, special nuclear, or byproduct material at a geologic repoeitory operations area, the DOE may (1) make '
changes in the geologic repository operations area as described in the application, (ii) I make changes in the procedures as described in the application, and (iii) conduct tests or experiments not described in the application, without prior Commission approval, provided 'I the change, test, or experiment involves neither a change in the license conditions incorporated in the license nor an unreviewed safety question.
IVl /Y An unreviewed safety question for this purpose is defined at 9 60.44 (2): p-2 (2) A proposed change, test, or experiment shat! - ueemed to involve an unreviewed safety question if (l) the likelihood of occurrence or the consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment important to nfety previously' evaluated in the i application is increased, (ii) the possibility of an acident or malfunction of a different type than any previously evaluated in the application is created, or (iii) the margin of safety as defined in the basis for any license condition is reduced.
CONTACT: .M. Fliegel, NMSS\DWM Id i L (301) 415-6629 x /,-Ll-/ Ni N 9805280044 980507 Il
=PDR WASTE u -
WM PDR .g
D. Cool l Authorization to pursue any activity involving an unresolved safety question requires a license I. amendment pursuant to 9 60.46. In response to a March 6,1998, Staff Requirements Memorandum on SECY-97-300, staff of the Division of Waste Management (DWM)is in the process of preparing a new Part 63, which would apply exclusively to Yucca Mountain.
Consistent with the strategy, approved by the Commission, in SECY-97-300, to adopt, as much as possible, pre-closure and administrative aspects of the existing Part 60 in the new site-specific regulation, initial working drafts of Part 63 contain a section 63.44 that is virtually identical to 10 CFR 60.44.
The low-level waste disposal regulations contain a section addressing licensee changes in 10 CFR 61.25. This section states -
"Except as provided for in specific license conditions, the licensee shall not make changes in the land disposal facility or procedures described in the license application. The license will include conditions restricting subsequent changes to the facility and the procedms authorized which are important to public health and safety as follows: (1) those features and procedures which may not be changed without (i) 60 days prior notice to the Commission, (ii) 30 days notice of opportunity for a prior hearing, and (iii) prior Commission approval; (2) those features and procedures which may not be changed without (i) 60 days prior notice to the Commission, and (ii) prior Commission approval; and (3) those features and procedures which may not be changed without 60 days prior notice to the Commission. Features and procedures falling in paragraph (a)(3) of this section may not be changed without prior Commission approvalif the Commission, after having received the required notice, so orders."
The classes of changes are specifically the " land disposal facility" and " procedures."
Part 40, which covers uranium recovery and decommissioning sites, and Parts 30 and 70, which cover decommissioning sites, do not contain language similar to 10 CFR 50.59. Part 72 contains language similar to 10 CFR 50.59 in @ 72.48, but staff has not decommissioned a site licensed under Part 72. On a case-by-case basis, staff has allowed the Part 30,40, and 70 licensees flexibility to make changes similar to what is allowed in 10 CFR 50.59. That authorization is given either through an amendment to a license or by incorporating it into a decommissioning plan.
DWM staff is currently in the process of preparing a new Part 41, which would be specific to uranium recovery. The initial draft of Part 41 contains a section similar to 10 CFR 50.59. It would allow: 1) changes in the facility or process described in the application; 2) changes in the procedures presented in the application; and 3) conduct of tests or experiments not presented in the application.
- 2. Of the classes of changes identified, identify those that would be amenable to the NRR approach to allowing a " minimal" increase in the probability of occunence of consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment, and ' minimal" reduction in the margin of safety, i
i I
J 1
a i
i .
D. Cool The classes identified in Part 61 and the draft versions of the proposed Parts 41 and 63 would be amenable to allowing a " minimal" increase in the probability of occurrence of consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment, and " minimal" reduction in the margin of safety. If the change were made in 10 CFR 50.59, similar changes could be incorporated into Part 61 and the proposed Parts 41 and 63.
- 3. Indicate whether appropriate ' tools" are available to do an analysis to measure a " minimal" reduction in the margin of safety.
For the HLW program, probabilistic risk assessment and performance assessment techniques are readily available and could be applied by the applicant, the Department of Energy (DOE), to the d termination of " minimal" reduction in the margin of safety relative to that described, and supported, in the license application. DOE would be required, under the new draft S 63.44, to document any such changes in an annual report which must include a summary of the safety evaluation for each changa it is possible that pathway analyses, used in the licensing of a Part 61 disposal facility, might be used to measure some " minimal" reductions in safety. This would be dependent on the nature of the proposed facility changes and assumes that the mode!s have sufficient detail to analyze the proposed changes. Changes to procedures, personnel, organization, etc. might be more i difficult to analyze than facility design changes.
" Tools" analogous to probabilistic risk analysis, including fault tree and event tree analyses, are not used in uranium recovery. In most cases, determining " minimal" would involve judgement.
The proposed Part 41 requires the creation of a " Safety and Environmental Review Panel" with appropriate expertise to make such a decision. I
- 4. Indicate whether categories oflicensees have the sophistication and the necessary tools to independently evaluate a reduction in tho margin of safety.
In tha HLW program, DOE, the sole applicant for a license to operate a repository at Yucca Mountain, has the sophistication and expe,+ise to independently evaluate a reduction in the margin of safety.
A Part 61 licensee would be expected to have a strong radiation safety staff and should have the sophistication and necessary tools to independently evaluate a reduction in the margin of safety.
Uranium recovery licensees typically have the sophistication and expertise to independently ,
evaluate a reduction in the margin of safety. I I
Many decommissioning licensees do not have the sophistication and expertise to independently evaluate changes to decommissioning plans without NRC staff review and approval. For that reason, DWM would not be in favor of incorporating language similar to 10 CFR 50.59 into Parts 30,40, and 70.
l s
p.
- 1. ..
D. Cool ., May 7, 1998
- 5. Discuss possible options for different categories oflicensees. For example, for some categones oflicensees, 'significant" and ' minimal" should be defined qualitatively for each type of change (e.g., procedures, processes, etc.). For other categories oflicensees, a quantitative definition could be developed.
It should be possible to set quantitative definitions for "significant" and " minimal" for most Part 61 facility' design changes. Qualitative definitions would probably be needed for other classes of changes (e.g., procedures, personnel, organization, etc.) for Part 61 licensees.
For both the HLW applicant, DOE, and uranium recovery licensees, a qualitative definition of "significant" and " minimal" should be used.
- 6. Indicate whetheryou would recommend conforming changes be made to specific regulations concurrently w!!h NRR orpropose recommended types of changes and a schedule formaking such changes.
l
' Conforming changes can be made to proposed Parts 41 and 63 as they are developed and finalized. DWM has not budgeted any resources to make further modifications to
.10 CFR Part 60, other than to indicate that it will not apply to Yucca Mountain.
The existing regulations in 10 CFR 61.25 provide a substantial amount of flexibility for applicants to propose a change process. Due to resource limitations in the low-level waste ]
program area, DWM would not recommend making regulatory changes at this time.
TICKET: 9800187
{
DISTRIBUTION- FILE CENTER PUBLIC NMSS r/f URB r/f PHolahan ACNW DWM r-t/f MFederline CAbrams MLayton CPoland .
CPcperiello JHickey MBell TCJohnson DOrlando JKotra Sj j DOCUMENT NAME S.}DWM\ URB \MHF\TK187-50.59 OFC b C b B DWM j NAME MFlkglel?bg Jhnich JG N s DATE 5//o/98 h/h98 5/T/98 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY l a5 L__-_-_-___________-_____.___
D. Cool -
- 5. Dis, cuss p'ossible options for different categories oflicensees. For example, for some categories oflicensees, 'significant" and " minimal" should be defined qualitatively for each type of change (e.g., procedures, processes, etc.). For other categories oflicensees, a quantitative definition could be developed.
It should be possible to set quantitative definitions for "significant" and " minimal" for most Part 61 facility design changes. Qualitative definitions would probably be needed for other classes of changes (e.g., procedures, personnel, organization, etc.) for Part 61 licensees.
For both the HLW applicant, DOE, and uranium recovery licensees, a qualitative definition of "significant" and " minimal" should be used.
- 6. Indicate whetheryou would recommend conforming changes be made to specific regulations concurrently with NRR orpropose recommended types of changes and a schedule formaking such changes.
Conforming changes can be made to proposed Parts 41 and 63 as they are developed and finalized. DWM has not budgeted any resources to make further modifications to 10 CFR Part 60, other than to indicate that it will not apply to Yucca Mountain.
The existing regulations in 10 CFR 61.25 provide a substantial amount of flexibility for applicants to proposo a change process. Due to resource limitations in the low-level waste program area, DWM would not recommend making regulatory changes at this time.
I l
4 l
L
__