ML21337A083
| ML21337A083 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Nuclear Energy Institute |
| Issue date: | 12/01/2021 |
| From: | Ashkeboussi N Nuclear Energy Institute |
| To: | Office of Administration |
| References | |
| 86FR61795 00001, NRC-2021-0170 | |
| Download: ML21337A083 (7) | |
Text
12/3/21, 8:37 AM blob:https://www.fdms.gov/42185b5e-339a-48c3-bd1d-7cac25ece59e SUNI Review Complete As of: 12/3/21 8:37 AM Template=ADM-013 Received: December 01, 2021 PUBLIC SUBMISSION E-RIDS=ADM-03 ADD: Tom Pham, Status: Pending_Post Tracking No. kwn-tl6s-6ktl Mary Neely Comments Due: December 03, 2021 Comment (1)
Publication Date: Submission Type: Web 11//08/2021 Citation: 86 FR 61795 Docket: NRC-2021-0170 Acceptable Standard Format and Content for the Fundamental Nuclear Material Control Plan Required for Special Nuclear Material of Moderate Strategic Significance Comment On: NRC-2021-0170-0001 Acceptable Standard Format and Content for the Fundamental Nuclear Material Control Plan Required for Special Nuclear Material of Moderate Strategic Significance Document: NRC-2021-0170-DRAFT-0003 Comment on FR Doc # 2021-20631 Submitter Information Email: nxa@nei.org Organization: Nuclear Energy Institute General Comment Comments on Draft NUREG-2159, Acceptable Standard Format and Content for the Fundamental Nuclear Material Control Plan Required for Special Nuclear Material of Moderate Strategic Significance
[Docket ID NRC-2021-0170]
Attachments 12-01-21 NRC_Comments on Draft NUREG-2159 letter with comments blob:https://www.fdms.gov/42185b5e-339a-48c3-bd1d-7cac25ece59e 1/1
NIMA ASHKEBOUSSI Sr. Director, Fuel Cycle and Radiation Safety Programs 1201 F Street, NW, Suite 1100 Washington, DC 20004 P: 202.739.8022 nxa@nei.org nei.org December 1, 2021 Office of Administration ATTN: Program Management, Announcements and Editing Staff Mail Stop: TWFN-7-A60M U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Submitted via Regulations.gov
Subject:
Comments on Draft NUREG-2159, Acceptable Standard Format and Content for the Fundamental Nuclear Material Control Plan Required for Special Nuclear Material of Moderate Strategic Significance
[Docket ID NRC-2021-0170]
Project Number: 689
Dear Program Management,
Announcements and Editing Staff:
On behalf of the Nuclear Energy Institutes (NEI)1 members, we appreciate the opportunity to provide comments on the NRCs draft NUREG-2159, Acceptable Standard Format and Content for the Fundamental Nuclear Material Control Plan Required for Special Nuclear Material of Moderate Strategic Significance. This document supports the MC&A guidance needs of the industry as it seeks to deploy reactors and fuel cycle facilities that will process and utilize Category II material. The attachment provides specific comments.
Please contact me if you have any questions or require additional information.
Sincerely, Nima Ashkeboussi Attachment c: James Rubenstone, Office of Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards, NRC Tom Pham, Office of Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards, NRC 1
The Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) is responsible for establishing unified policy on behalf of its members relating to matters affecting the nuclear energy industry, including the regulatory aspects of generic operational and technical issues. NEIs members include entities licensed to operate commercial nuclear power plants in the United States, nuclear plant designers, major architect and engineering firms, fuel cycle facilities, nuclear materials licensees, and other organizations involved in the nuclear energy industry.
Attachment:
Industry Comments to Draft NUREG-2159 Section Comment Recommendation/Action
- 1. Section 2, The proposed guidance far exceeds the requirements found in Remove the noted text entirely.
Item 4; 6 Pg Subpart D 74.41 (c) as well as the similar requirements found in 6, lines 8- Subpart E for SSNM and is not a credible concern. Replace with a paragraph stating: Where 18 the organizational structure is such that a 74.43(b) (1) A management structure shall be established, position having responsibility within the 10 documented, and maintained that assures: CFR Part 74 MC&A program also has responsibility within the 10 CFR Part 73, (i) Clear overall responsibility for material control and accounting Physical Protection of Plants and (MC&A) functions. Materials, system, the plan will address roles and responsibilities to ensure the (ii) Independence from production and manufacturing MC&A program is not subject to responsibilities; and compromise by the actions of a single insider filling the position. A safeguards (iii) Separation of key responsibilities. manager could be an example of such a position.
This provides sufficient independence of activities.
For most licensees, such a position would require access to SGI and as such the individual would be granted access to SGI in accordance with 73.22(b) which includes a background check to determine the individual is trustworthy and reliable, and for some licensees such a position would require either an L or Q clearance.
- 2. Section 3.3 Section 3.3 "MC&A Organization" states: Replace this wording with similar guidance used in NUREG-1520, Section An organizational chart and position-by-position description of the 2.4.2(8)(3) to read:
entire MC&A organization should be provided. A licensee should designate an individual as the overall manager of the MC&A In the organizational hierarchy, the MC&A program, and the MC&A plan must demonstrate the assurance of organization(s) is independent of the independence of action and objectivity of decision for the MC&A 1
Attachment:
Industry Comments to Draft NUREG-2159 manager. Two options for meeting the organizational independence operations organization(s), allowing it to are: (1) report directly to the plant or site manager, or (2) report to provide objective MC&A audit, review, or an individual who reports to the plant or site manager through a control activities. "Independent" means management chain with no production responsibilities. that neither organization reports to the Providing only two options to meet organizational independence other in an administrative sense. (However, appears to unnecessarily restrict organization structures and both may report to a common manager.)
independent reporting options. This could be particularly Lines of responsibility and authority are problematic as advanced reactors look to limit the number of onsite clearly drawn.
personnel.
- 3. Section 3.5 Section 3.5 states one of the roles to be an overall MC&A program Revise the first bullet to read:
management (note that this individual should have no major responsibilities not related to MC&A). overall MC&A program management (note that overall MC&A program management Given the reduction in size and scope of SNM on site for potential should be vested to a single individual at an proposed advanced reactor applicants, as well as unique fuel organizational level sufficient to assure fabrication considerations, there should be an allowance for MC&A independence of action and objectiveness management to have other duties not specifically related to MC&A. of decisions).
- 4. Section This Section states that: Reword to remove the 30 days and state 5.1.3; Pg 20, All contractor or offsite laboratory assessment findings and Findings and recommendations are to be lines 36-39 addressed consistent with the licensees QA recommendations should be documented and submitted to both and Corrective Action Program.
the measurement control program manager and the overall MC&A manager within 30 days of completion of the review.
This is an arbitrary time frame not specified in the regulations.
- 5. Section 5.2; This Section states that: Reword sentence to state FNMCP should Pg 21, lines address the following applicable 6-7 The FNMC plan should describe the replicate sampling program, attributes:
which must include 6 the following, as appropriate 2
Attachment:
Industry Comments to Draft NUREG-2159 Sentence is a recommendation, with an embedded requirement (must), then a caveat (as applicable) is applied.
- 6. Section 6.2; This Section states that: Reword to state licensees should Pg 37, lines commit to independently verify the Licensees should also commit to having at least two individuals 28-31 accuracy of the ID and SEID calculations independently verify the accuracy of the ID and SEID calculations for for each total plant material balance.
each total plant material balance.
Normal technical review by one other qualified individual is the Also, although provided elsewhere, the nuclear industry normal practice. To invoke two additional formula for SEID should be provided in this verifications for such a highly specialized function is an extreme section.
burden on the licensee with no clear regulatory basis or safety benefit. Also, the SEID does not directly affect the accounting records; it is calculated to determine if you are in control.
- 7. Section 6.3; This Section states that: Reword or remove unusually large or Pg 38, lines state the following: The bias correction is 29-30 the NRC acceptance criteria do not normally call for applying only applied if it is significant with 95%
bias corrections to either the accounting records or as an confidence and exceeds the rounding adjustment to ID unless the effect of a single significant bias or the error.
net sum of all significant biases is unusually large.
Provide basis as to what is meant by unusually large. NRC acceptance criteria does not normally call for applying bias corrections to either the accounting records or as an adjustment.
- 8. Section 6.3; This Section states that: Reword: if such bias is statistically Pg 38, line significant at the 95 percent confidence the bias is greater than 0.01 percent relative 44 level, and exceeds the rounding error of the affected items. The bias correction is Provide basis as this appears to be a new criterion being introduced. intended to correct the ID. Its impact on the SEID should also be propagated, resulting in 3
Attachment:
Industry Comments to Draft NUREG-2159 an adjustment to the SEID.
- 9. Section 6.4, This Section cites 10 CFR 74.43 (c)(8)(iii) Confirm and correct as needed.
th 4 Bullet; Page 39, Correct citation may be (i) versus (iii) line 36 10 Section 7.5; This Section states that: Suggest rewording to remove the 3 months Pg 44, lines physical inventories are performed so as to confirm that a loss or and state at a frequency that takes onto 13-14 diversion of a significant quantity of SNM has not occurred: dynamic account the potential for loss or diversion (i.e., in-process) materials, which is performed on a frequency not to from the operation exceed 3 calendar months There is no direct regulatory basis for the 3 months stated.
11 Section 7.6, This section provides warning ID levels. It is unclear what the Provide basis for suggested warning ID Pg 47, lines regulatory/technical basis is for these suggested warning ID levels. levels and address 10 kg vs 9 kg value or 28-38 remove.
Also, if keeping the 10kg should be changed to 9 kg 12 Section 7.7; This section states that: Remove the text Pg 49, lines The FNMC plan should establish a threshold of three times SEID for 48-50 evaluating an ID will result in a 90-percent (or better) probability of detecting a discrepancy equal to or greater than 0.4 percent of the active inventory for the inventory period in question.
This is unnecessary and basis for 0.4% is unclear.
13 Section 8.2; This section provides examples of items that may be exempt from Also include the guidance from the previous Pg 51, lines item control program coverage. This list should expand to include draft regarding the exemption for 29-39 samples. laboratory samples and reference standards maintained in the laboratory material management system and 4
Attachment:
Industry Comments to Draft NUREG-2159 containing uranium enriched to less than 20 percent in the uranium-235 isotope.
14 Section 9.5 Section 9.5, "Resolution of Significant Shipper-Receiver Differences - Recommend that this section be reworded Commitments and Acceptance Criteria" states: to be more consistent with 74.15(a) which requires updated information to be Each shipping container is inspected within 3 working days after generated within 10 days.
receipt for loss or damage to the container or TIDs to determine whether SNM could have been removed. If the integrity of a container is questionable, the presence of all items that were that were packaged in the shipping container will be confirmed within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> of discovering the questionable integrity.
10 CFR 74.43(b)(7) contains neither a 3 working day nor 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> requirement. The 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> requirement appears to be overly restrictive and depending on the type of package and the number of items in the package in some cases may not be achievable.
15 Section 14.1 Section 14.1 prescribes that the FNMC plan should identify records, Revise the language to read, Such records forms, procedures, etc., that show compliance with 10 CFR Part 74. may include, but are not limited to, the It further includes a complete list of items that are required to be following:.
included in the FNMC plan. While this list may be applicable to many applicants, depending upon the structure, plan, applicant goal, etc.,
it is not clear that the list should be a necessity for all.
16 Section 16, The References Section lists NUREG/BR0096 with a date of Update in all locations to correct date.
Pg 91, lines October 1992. The ADAMS version has January 1992.
6-7 17 Section 16, The references for NUREG/BR-0006 and NUREG/BR-0007 do not Update with the appropriate dates.
Pg 91 list dates 5