ML22321A108
| ML22321A108 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 07001113 |
| Issue date: | 11/17/2022 |
| From: | Murray S Global Nuclear Fuel |
| To: | NRC/SECY, Document Control Desk, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards |
| References | |
| M220144, NRC-2016-0179 | |
| Download: ML22321A108 (1) | |
Text
Scott P. Murray Manager, Facility Licensing
3901 Castle Hayne Road P.O. Box780 Global Nuclear Fuel Wilmington, NC 28402 USA M220144 T 910-819-5950 Scott. murray@ ge.com November 17, 2022
Secretary US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 A TIN: Rulemakings and Adjudication Staff
Subject:
Comments on Prop~sed Revisions to 10 CFR Part 71, Docket ID NRC-2016-0179
References:
- 1) Federal Register, September 12, 2022 (87 FR 55708)
- 2) SNM-1 097, Docket 70-1113
Dear Sir or Madam:
Global Nuclear Fuel-Americas, LLC (GNF-A) appreciates the opportunity to comment on NRC's proposed revisions to the packaging and transportation requirements in 1 0 CFR Part 71 (Reference 1 ). The stated purpose of this revision is to harmonize Part 71 with the 2012 and 2018 editions of lnternati911al ~tomic _ Energy Agency (_IAEA) Specific Safety Requirements Number 6 (SSR-6), harmonize Part 71 with Department of Transportation (DOT) requirements and incorporate other NRC staff identified changes.
GNF-A ~lso apprecia~es the numerous public meetings NRC held regarding these changes, including the ones on October 19 and October 26, 2022. These meetings provided a detailed overvi_ew of the proposed ch.anges and presented staff's current proposed actions for the 15 major issues under consideration.
Attached are GNF-A's specific comments regarding NRC's proposed revisions to Part 71.
Please contact me on (91 0) 819-5950 if you have any questions or would like to discuss this matter further.
Sincerely,
~tt ~. (}~ Murray, M p
Facility Licensing
Attachment GNF-A Comments - NRC Proposed Rulemaking - 10 CFR Part 71
Cc: J. Rivera, USNRC/RII/DFFI J. Rowley, USNRC/NMSS/DFM/FFLB SPM 22-034
M220144 U.S. NRC Page 2 of 3 Attachment November 17, 2022
- 1. Issue 7: Provisions for Large Solid Contaminated Objects
NRC is considering and seeking i nput on the necessity of adding a new surface contaminated object (SCO) category to the regulations. Consider ing the increase in decommissioning activities, GNF-A believes a new category SCO-I II would be beneficial for entities transporting large components by creating a consis tent standard and eliminating NRC pre-shipment approvals.
GNF-A endorses the proposal to add a new definition in 71.4 for SCO-III to acknowledge the transporting of large radioactive objects and a llow a shipper to more appropriately categorize these items which would not need NRC r eview and approval for these types of special package authorizations.
- 2. Issue 9: Aging Effects
Current NRC regulations in 10 CFR 71.87, Routine determinations adequately cover any type of degradation that would be associated with an aging package. NRC currently requires licensees and package users to follow the ac ceptance and maintenance program provided with the application, including pe riodic testing to evaluate component efficacy, replacement, or repair. Additional ly, NRC current regulations require that, prior to each shipment, users ensure that the package is in unimpaired physical condition except for superficial defects such as marks or dents.
Meeting these requirements, along with scheduled periodic tests, replacements and repairs adequately addresses package deterioration prior to age related degradation becoming a transport safety issue.
Furthermore, consumables within the package are covered by addi tional requirements outlined in 10 CFR 71 Subparts G and H of the licensing program (i.e., covered by the NRC approved Chapter 8 of a licensees Safety Analysis Report). GNF-A believes inclusion of aging management requirements would add confusion and could be subject to interpretation, especially since no new safety related issue or concern has been raised.
As a result, there is no need to revise 71.43(d) to specificall y include the evaluation of aging effects and revise Subpart D with a new provision to incl ude a description of the maintenance program for package approvals. These additional pro visions would not add value or additional protections to the public or environmen t and additional aging management requirements would only serve as an unneeded adminis trative burden to both the NRC and CoC holders.
- 3. Issue 12: QA Program Bi-ennial Reports
NRC is proposing to add a requirement to 71.106 that would requ ire a biennial report even if no changes were made to a quality assurance program (QA P) in the prior 24 months. NRC stated this is to more clearly align 71.106 with 50.71(e)(2). There is no reason to align reporting requirements for a Part 71 package QA P to operating nuclear power reactor revisions of a final safety analysis report (FSAR ). Since many Part 71 QAPs do not routinely change, requiring periodic no-change re ports is an unnecessary, administrative burden on QAP holders without a cle ar regulatory need, articulated benefit, or safety concern.
M220144 U.S. NRC Page 3 of 3 Attachment November 17, 2022
In addition, NRC current regulation 71.106(b) allows an approva l holder to change a previously approved QAP without prior NRC approval if the chang e does not reduce commitments previously approved by NRC. Such changes to the QAP that do not reduce commitments must be submitted to NRC every 24 months. As a result, the NRC inspection program for Part 71 receives current information abo ut a holders QAP and the NRC inspection processes can quickly and easily determine i f no changes were made to a QAP since the last inspection.
Based on many years of operati onal experience with similar NRC documents that are allowed to be changed without prior NRC approval and without a similar periodic no change reporting requirement (i.e., Part 70 license material c ontrol plans, physical security plans, emergency plans, etc.), GNF-A believes there is no demonstrated need to justify this change to the rule especially when considering the cumulative effects of potentially new and existing regulations.
- 4. Issue 15.4: Agreement State Compatibility
NRC is proposing to revise several Agreement State Compatibilit y Levels related to quality assurance plans (QAP) and reporting requirements that h ave the potential to create several unintended negative impacts.
For example, GNF-A is the owner and certificate holder of a Typ e B package located in an agreement state (North Carolina). Although the package is us ed exclusively to ship radioactive material licensed by NRC, making the state responsi ble for approving, inspecting, and enforcing QAP requirements for this package wou ld add confusion and create an unneeded administrative burden to both the agreement state and GNF-A.
Similarly, GE Hitachi (GEH) is the owner and certificate holder of a Type B package located in another agreement state (California). This package i s sometimes used to ship radioactive material licensed by either NRC or CA. Making the s tate responsible for approving, inspecting, and enforcing QAP requirements for this package would add confusion and create an unneeded administrative burden to both the agreement state and GEH.
In addition, since both packages use the same QAP, there will l ikely be three different approval dates (NRC, NC & CA) making the timing for issuing the bi-ennial no change reports described in issue 12 more difficult to determine.
There are also potential negative impacts when both NRC and agr eement states are reviewing and approving the same QAP. For example, if one regul atory body fails to approve the QAP (e.g., the agreement state), can the package co ntinue to be used?
What is the resolution process if an agreement state imposes ad ditional requirements on the QAP beyond those of NRC?
These compatibility changes for NRC approved Type B package QAP s are both duplicative and unnecessary. As a result, GNF-A recommends NRC remain the sole agency to approve, inspect and enforce Type B package QAP requi rements.