ML23156A376

PR-072 - 63FR13372 - Minor Revision of Design Basis Accident Dose Limits for Independent Spent Fuel Storage and Monitored Retrievable Storage Installations

ML23156A376
Person / Time
Issue date:	03/19/1998
From:	Callan L NRC/EDO
To:
References
PR-072, 63FR13372
Download: ML23156A376 (1)

Text

DOCUMENT DATE:

TITLE:

CASE

REFERENCE:

KEYWORD:

ADAMS Template: SECY-067 03/19/1998 PR-072 - 63FR13372 - MINOR REVISION OF DESIGN BASIS ACCIDENT DOSE LIMITS FOR INDEPENDENT SPENT FUEL STORAGE AND MONITORED RETRIEVABLE STORAGE INSTALLATIONS PR-072 63FR13372 RULEMAKING COMMENTS Document Sensitivity: Non-sensitive - SUNSI Review Complete

STATUS OF RULEMAKING PROPOSED RULE:

PR-072 OPEN ITEM (Y/N) N RULE NAME:

MINOR REVISION OF DESIGN BASIS ACCIDENT DOSE LIMITS FOR INDEPENDENT SPENT FUEL STORAGE AND MONITORED RETRIEVABLE STORAGE INSTALLATIONS PROPOSED RULE FED REG CITE:

63FR13372 PROPOSED RULE PUBLICATION DATE:

03/19/ 98 ORIGINAL DATE FOR COMMENTS: 05 / 04/ 98 NUMBER OF COMMENTS:

2 EXTENSION DATE:

I I

FINAL RULE FED. REG. CITE: 63FR54559 FINAL RULE PUBLICATION DATE: 10/13/98 NOTES ON: AMENDING REGS TO MAKE LIMITS FOR DESIGN BASIS ACCIDENTS AT ISFSI &

STATUS a

MRS INSTALLATIONS CONSISTENT WITH DOSE METHODOLOGY SPECIFIED IN R OF RULE: EGS & TO ALLOW FLEXIBILITY FOR LICENSEES.

/ S/' D BY EDO HISTORY OF THE RULE

=

PART AFFECTED: PR-072 ROLE TITLE:

MINOR REVISION OF DESIGN BASIS ACCIDENT DOSE LIMITS FOR INDEPENDENT SPENT FUEL STORAGE AND MONITORED RETRIEVABLE STORAGE INSTALLATIONS PROPOSED RULE SECY PAPER:

PROPOSED RULE SRM DATE:

DATE PROPOSED RULE FINAL RULE SECY PAPER:

FINAL RULE SRM DATE:

I I

I I

SIGNED BY SECRETARY:

03/03/98 DATE FINAL RULE SIGNED BY SECRETARY:

09/24/98 STAFF CONTACTS ON THE RULE CONTACT!: NAIEM S. TANIOUS CONTACT2:

MAIL STOP: T-8FS MAIL STOP:

PHONE: 415-6103 PHONE:

DOCKET NO. PR-072 (63FR13372)

In the Matter of MINOR REVISION OF DESIGN BASIS ACCIDENT DOSE LIMITS FOR INDEPENDENT SPENT FUEL STORAGE AND MONITORED RETRIEVABLE STORAGE INSTALLATIONS DATE DATE OF TITLE OR DOCKETED DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENT 03/19/98 03/03/98 FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE - PROPOSED RULE 05/05/98 05/04/98 COMMENT OF NUCLEAR ENERGY INSTITUTE (LYNNETTE HENDRICKS) (

1) 05/26/98 05/21/98 COMMENT OF TSW ENTERPRISES (GARRY BROCHMAN, PRESIDENT) (

2) 10/14/98 09/24/98 FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE - FINAL RULE

DOCKETED us~ c

[7590-01-P]

"98 OCT 14 A10 :27 NUCLEAR REGULA TORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Part 72 RIN: 3150-AF84 Minor Revision of Design Basis Accident Dose Limits for Independent Spent Fuel Storage and Monitored Retrievable Storage Installations AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

Ot-r 1 R l ADJ, L

SUMMARY

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is amending its regulations governing the dose limits and the dose calculational methodology used in design basis accident analyses for Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installations (ISFSls) and Monitored Retrievable Storage Installations (MRS). This final rule amends ISFSI and MRS design basis accident dose limits to conform to the dose calculational methodology currently used in the regulations that specify standards for protection against radiation and make a minor change to match the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) regulations. This action will ensure that limits for design basis accidents at ISFSI and MRS installations are consistent with the dose methodology specified in NRC radiation protection regulations, and will allow licensees the flexibility provided by that dose methodology when performing design basis accident analyses.

Pµ./;.,.,,,,

10/13/t/s-d fo3Ff<.5~55CJ

~

I :J.1 I '1 9 g EFFECTIVE DATE:

{30 days af:ter date ef J3ubliee:tio11 iii tl,e Fedetal Registef).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Naiem S. Tanious, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone (301) 415-6103, E-mail: INTERNET:NST@nrc.gov SUPPLEMENTARY INFOAMA TION:

Background

Paragraph (b) of§ 72.106 establishes the dose limit for a design basis accident at an independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI) or a monitored retrievable storage installation (MAS). The dose limit in§ 72.106{b) is based on the dose calculational methodology contained in International Commission on Radiological Protection Publication Number 2 (ICRP-2, 1959). The ICAP-2 methodology was subsequently revised in ICAP Publication Number 26 {ICRP-26, 1977), and was incorporated into 1 O CFR Part 20 when Part 20 was revised in 1991.

The calculational methodology in the revised Part 20 no longer quantifies dose in terms of whole body dose and individual organ dose. Instead, the dose is quantified as a risk equivalent dose. In this manner, the doses absorbed by the whole body and the indMdual organs can be summed to a single quantity relating to risk.

Under the Part 20 calculational methodology, deep-dose equivalent {Hd), which applies to the external whole-body exposure, is defined in 10 CFR 20.1003 as the dose equivalent at a tissue depth of 1 cm (1000 mg/cm2). The committed dose equiva/ent(CDE)(HT,50) Is defined in 1 O CFA 20.1003 to mean the dose equivalent to organs or tissues of reference (T) that will be received from an intake of radioactive material by an individual during the 50-year period 2

following the intake. The committed effective dose equivalent (CEDE) (HE.so) is defined in 1 O CFR 20.1003 as the sum of the products of the weighting factors applicable to each of the body organs or tissues that are irradiated and the committed dose equivalent to these organs or tissues (HE,so = [wTHn50). The total effective dose equivalent (TEDE) is the sum of the deep-dose equivalent (for external exposure) and the committed effective dose equivalent (for Internal exposures).

The ICRP-26 methodology was not incorpor.1ted into Part 72 at the time Part 20 was revised. Part 72 contains two regulations setting dose limits: § 72.104, which sets dose limits during normal operations and anticipated occurrences; and § 72.106, which sets dose limits for design basis accidents.

. The main objective of this final rule is to revise § 72.106(b) to incorporate the Part 20 methodology. A second objective of the rule is to make a minor word change to § 72.104(a) to match the language used by EPA in 40 CFR 191.03(a).

On March 19, 1998 (63 FR 13372), the NRC published the notice of proposed rulemaking that would amend ISFSI and MRS design basis accident dose limits to conform to the dose calculational methodology currently used in 1 O CFR Part 20, and to make a minor change to§ 72.104(a) to match EPA's regulation in 40 CFR 191.03(a). The public comment period expired May 4, 1998.

Discussion At present,§ 72.106, Controlled area of an ISFSI or MRS in part provides:

(b) Any Individual located on or beyond'the nearest boundary of the controlled area shall not receive a dose greater than 5 rem to the whole body or any organ 3

from any design basis accident. The minimum distance from the spent fuel or high-level radioactive waste handling and storage facilities to the nearest boundary of the controlled area shall be at least 100 meters.

This 0.05 Sv (5 rem) limit to the whole body or any organ Is amended In the final rule to conform with the Part 20 dose calculational methodotcw. The amended limit becomes the more limiting of the TEDE of 0.05 Sv (5 rem), c*r the sum of the deep dose equivalent and the committed dose equivalent to any lndMdual organ or tissue (other than the lens of the eye) of 0.5 SV (50 rem). The amendment also includes a separate dose limit for the lens of the eye of 0.15 SV (15 rem); and for the skin or any extremity, a shallow dose equivalent of 0.5 Sv (50 rem). The use of separate dose limits for the lens of the-eye, skin, and extremities will conform with the dose calculational methodology used in Part 20 and will ensure that no observable effects (e.g., induction of cataracts in the lens of the eye) will occur as a result of any accidental radiation exposure.

This final rule makes § 72.106 consistent with Part 20 dose calculational methodology.

This rule also provides Part 72 licensees flexibility when performing design basis accident analyses because they would be able to use organ weighting factors to calculate the dose to the maximally exposed organ. In addition, Part 72 licensees will no longer need to comply with one calculational methodology for their radiation protection programs (I.e., the revised Part 20 methodology) and another methodology for their design basis accident analyses.

This final rule does not revise § 72.104(a) to Incorporate ICRP-26 methodology because doing so would render this regulation incompatible with the EPA's regulation at 40 CFR 191.03(a) which is applicable to ISFSI and MRS licensees. However, 40 CFR 191.03{a) phrases the standard in terms of dose limits to the whole body and any critical organ-, whereas,

§ 72.104(a) phrases the standard in terms of dose limits to the whole body and any organ. This 4

final rule makes § 72.104(a) more consistent with 40 CFR 191.03{a) by inserting the word critical before the word organ. The critical organ (listed in Table 1 of ICRP-2) associated with an intake of radioactive material is considered to be that organ of the body whose damage by the radiation results in the greatest damage to the body.

This final rule adopts the tenn *Lens dose equivalenr In § 72.106 which replaces the term "Eye dose equivalenr. This new term was added to Part 20 in an NRC final rule published on July 23, 1998 (63 FR 39477).

Public Comments on the Proposed Rule The NRC received two public comments: one from the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI),

an organization that represents the nuclear energy industry, and the other from TSW Enterprises, a private company. Both commenters supported the proposed rule. NEI, while expressing disappointment that NRC was not amending § 72.104(a) because this would create incompatibility with EPA's regulation, urged the NRC to proceed with the revisions as proposed.

TSW Enterprises also supported the proposed rule and suggested that in § 72.104(a) the radiation exposure limits be expressed in metric units as well as English units in accord with the Commission's policy on the use of metric units (61 FR 31169). The Commission agrees with this suggestion and this change is made in the final rule.

Criminal Penalties For purposes of Section 223 of the Atomic Energy Act (AEA), the Commission is issuing the final rule under one or more of sections 161 b, 161: or 161 o of the AEA. Willful violations of the rule will be subject to criminal enforcement.

5

Environmental Impact: Categorical Exclusion The NRC has determined that this final rule ls the type of action described in categorical exclusion 10 CFR 51.22(c)(2). Therefore, neither an environmental Impact statement nor an environmental assessment have been prepared for this regulation.

Paperwork Reduction Act Statement This final rule does not contain a new or amended information collection requirement subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). Existing requirements were approved by the Office of Management and Budget, approval number 3150-0132.

Public Protection Notification If an Information collection does not display a currently valid 0MB control number, the NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, the information collection. -

Regulatory Analysis To determine whether the amendments to 10 CFR Part 72 are appropriate, the NRC staff considered the following two alternatives:

6

1. The No-Action Alternative. This alternative is not acceptable to the NRC for the following reasons. Section 72.106(b) would continue to be inconsistent with Part 20. Part 72 licensees would demonstrate compliance with the dose limits in Part 20 using the 1977 dose calculational methodology of ICRP-26 for their radiation protection programs as required by

§§ 72.24(e) and 72.44(d). However, Part 72 licensees would continue to use the 1959 dose calculational methodology of ICRP-2 in addressing radiation dose from a design basis accident as required in § 72.106(b). Thus, licensees would not be able to take advantage of the flexibility provided by the dose calculational methodology used in Part 20 when performing design basis accident analyses. Therefore, this alternative was not pursued.

2. Amendments of 1 0 CFR Part 72. In this option, the staff considered preparing a proposed rule to amend the dose limiting design objective in § 72.106(b) to 5 rem TEDE. This is consistent with the intent of the existing § 72.106(b), and updates the dose calculational methodology to that which Is used for demonstration of compliance with Part 20. Updating the dose calculatlonal methodology also would increase the organ dose limit, COE, from 5 rem to 50 rem; allow for the use of risk-based weighting factors for each organ or tissue to determine the SO-year CEDE; and provide licensees with additional flexibility in conducting and submitting design basis accident analyses to demonstrate compliance with the requirements in

§ 72.106(b).

In addition to the increased flexibility provided to licensees, they would no longer need to comply with one calculational methodology for their radiation protection programs (i.e., the revised Part 20 methodology) and another methodology for their design basis accident analyses.

7

Moreover, design basis accident analyses for ISFSls and MRS installations would use the same\\dose calculational methodology as design basis accident analyses for a geologic repository operations area(§ 60.136(b)). This alternative was chosen by the NRC.

This constitutes the regulatory analysis for this final rule. As discussed above, this rule does not impose any new requirements. Therefore, there will be no additional cost burden to Part 72 licensees or the Federal Government.

Regulatory Flexibility Certification As required by the Regulatory Flexlbility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 605(b), the Commission certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact upon a substantial number of small entities. The final rule will provide licensees with additional flexibility in conducting and submitting design basis accident analyses to demonstrate compliance with the requirements in

§ 72.106(b). In addition, the licensees would no longer need to comply with one calculational methodology for their radiation protection programs (i.e., the revised Part 20 methodology) and another methodology for their design basis accident analyses.

The final rule will not impose any additional obligations on entities that may fall within the definition of *small entities* as set forth in Section 601 (3) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act; or within the definition of "small business* as found in Section 3 of the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. 632; or within the size standards adopted by the NRC on April 11, 1995 (60 FR 18344).

8

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act In accordance with-the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, the NRC has determined that this action is not a "major rule" and has verified this detennination with the Office of lnfonnation and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget.

Backfit Analysis The NRC has detennined that the backfit rule, § 72.62, does not apply to this finaJ rule, and a backfit analysis Is not required, because these amendments do not involve anfprovlsions that would impose backfits as defined In § 72.62(a). This final rule does not constitute e. backflt under § 72.62, because it does not require a change to existing structures, systems, components, procedures, or organization. Further, the rule will not result in a more stringent outcome than the existing rule, and therefore, current licensees who are In compliance with the existing rule will not be required to make any changes or take any action. New applicants and license renewal applications will be able to take advantage of some additional flexibility in the dose calculations that is afforded by this rule.

Agreement State Implementation Issues Under the "Policy Statement on Adequacy and Compatibility of Agreement State Programs" approved by the Commission on June 30, 1997, (62 FR 46517), this rule Is classified as a compatibility Category "NRC." This rule is not required for compatibility and addresses areas of exclusive NRC authority. This area of regulations cannot be relinquished to 9

Agreement States pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act and, as such, States should not adopt this regulation.

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 72 Criminal penaltl~s. Manpower training programs, Nuclear materials, Occupational safety and health, Reporting and recordkeeping requlrem.?nts, Security measures, Spent fuel.

For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended; the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended; and 5 U.S.C.

553, the Commission is adopting the following amendments to 1 o CFR Part 72.

PART 72 -- LICENSING REQUIREMENTS FOR THE INDEPENDENT STORAGE OF SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL AND HIGH-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE

1. The authority citation for Part 72 continues to read as follows:

AUTHORITY: Secs. 51, 53, 57, 62, 63, 65, 69, 81, 161, 182, 183, 184, 186, 187, 189, 68 Stat. 929, 930, 932, 933, 934, 935, 948, 953, 954, 955, as amended, sec. 234, 83 Stat. 444, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2071, 2073, 20n, 2092, 2093, 2095, 2099, 2111, 2201, 2232, 2233, 2234, 2236, 2237, 2238, 2282); sec. 274, Pub. L.86-373, 73 Stat. 688, as amended (42 U.S.C.

2021); sec. 201, as amended, 202,206, 88 Stat. 1242, as amended, 1244, 1246 {42 U.S.C.

5841, 5842, 5846); Pub. L 95-601, sec. 1 O, 92 Stat. 2951 as amended by Pub. L. 102-486, sec. 7902, 106 Stat. 3123 (42 U.S.C. 5851); sec. 102, Pub. L.91-190, 83 Stat. 853 (42 U.S.C.

4332); secs. 131,132,133,135,137, 141, Pub. L.97-425, 96 Stat. 2229, 2230, 2232, 2241, 10

sec. 148, Pub. L. 100-203, 101 Stat.1330-235 (42 U.S.C. 10151, 10152, 10153, 10155, 10157, 10161, 10168).

Section 72.44(g) also issued under secs. 142(b) and 148(c), {d), Pub. L. 100-203, 101 Stat. 1330-232, 1330-236 (42 U.S.C. 10162(b), 10168(c}, (d)). Section 72.46 also issued under sec. 189, 68 Stat. 955 {42 U.S.C. 2239); sec. 134, Pub. L.97-425, 96 Stat. 2230 (42 U.S.C.

10154). Section 72.96(d) also issued undersec.145(g), Pub. L. 100-203, 101 Stat. 1330-235 (42 U.S.C. 10165(9)). Subpart J also Issued under secs. 2(2), 2(15), 2(19), 117(a), 141{h),

Pub. L.97-425, 96 Stat. 2202, 2203, 2204, 2222, 2224 {42 U.S.C. 10101, 10137(a), 10161(h)).

Subparts Kand Lare also issued under sec. 133, 98 Stat. 2230 (42 U.S.C. 10153) and sec.

218{a), 96 Stat. 2252 (42 U.S.C. 10198).

2. In § 72.104, the introductory sentence of paragraph (a) is revised to read as follows:

§ 72.104 Criteria for radioactive materials in effluents and direct radiation from an ISFSI or MRS.

{a) During normal operations and anticipated occurrences, the annual dose equivalent to any real individual who is located beyond the controlled area must not exceed 0.25 mSV (25 mrem) to the whole body, 0.75 mSv (75 mrem) to the thyroid and 0.25 mSv (25 mrem) to any other critical organ as a result of exposure to:

3. In§ 72.106, paragraph {b) is revised to read as follows:

§ 72.106 Controlled area of an ISFSI or MRS.

11

(b) Any individual located on or beyond the nearest boundary of the controlled area may not receive from any design basis accident the more limiting of a total effective dose equivalent of 0.05 Sv (5 rem), or the sum of the deep-dose equivalent and the committed dose equivalent to any individual organ or tissue (other than the lens of the eye} of 0.5 Sv (50 rem).

12

The lens dose equivalent shall not exceed 0.15 Sv (15 rem) and the shallow dose equivalent to skin or to any extremity shall not exceed 0.5 Sv (50 rem). The minimum distance from the spent fuel or high-level radioactive waste handling and storage facilities to the nearest boundary of the controlled area must be at least 100 meters.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this ;2 y-!!, day of¥ 1998.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

L. Josep Executive or Operations.

13

DOCl'{ETED USNRC "98 MAY 26 P 1 :35 OFF,.

ATTN: Rulemakings and Adjudic4481:i-s-staff Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatc#ylele1/;,~ission*,:

Washington, DC 20555-0001

...)

IAFF

Reference:

Proposed Rule to Amend 1 0 CFR Part 72 (63 FR 13372)

Gentlemen:

TSW Enterprises 17045 Catalpa Court Rockville, MD 20855 May 21, 1998 DOC KE f NUMBER PROPOSED RULE PR 1 :2,;

USFR 1331.Q..) @

I support the proposed rule to amend 10 CFR 72.104 and 72.106 with one comment. In section 72.104 the radiation exposure limits should be expressed in metric units as well as English units.

This approach would be consistent with the Commission's policy on the use of metric units as well as the approach taken in the proposed revision to section 72.106.

I understand that this comment will be received after the close of the comment period; however, I would urge your consideration of it nevertheless.

Sincerely, Garry Brachman President, TSW Enterprises MAY 2 8 1998 Acknowledged by card..................................

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION RULEMAKINGS & ADJUDICATIONS STAFF OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE C01{iMiSSION Postmark Date s__/;) :;1.

CJ 8' __ _

Coples Receivea

/

Add'! Copies Re"'rrc: ~ u 1...--:-----

Sp~

Q~:~~~~~1~

~~~---;>AR. ?tiJS I

I

DOCKETED USHRC NUCLEAR ENERGY INSTIT UTE "98 MAY -5 P 3 LJQette Hendricks DIRECTOR, PLANT SUPPORT NUCLEAR GENERATION DIVISION May 4, 1998 Mr. John C. Hoyle, Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-001 Attn: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff OFH R1...,I _

ADJUU DOCKET NUMBER PROPOSED RULE 1 ~

( '73 F~ /33 7 o2) (!)

SUBJECT:

Proposed Rule - 10 CFR Part 72, "Minor Revision of Design Basis Accident Dose Limits for Independent Spent Fuel Storage and Monitored Retrievable Storage Installations,"

(63 Federal Register 13372 - March 19, 1998)

Dear Mr. Hoyle:

The Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), on behalf of the nuclear energy industry, has reviewed the subject proposed rule. We offer the following comments for consideration.

We are in support of the NRC proposal to revise the radiation dose criteria for analyzing design basis accidents at independent spent fuel storage and monitored retrievable storage installations to be consistent with current dose methodology specified in 10 CFR Part 20.

Adoption in Part 72 of the Part 20 dose methodology will afford enhanced flexibility when performing design basis accident analyses because licensees will be able to sum organ doses for comparison with a single effective dose equivalent criterion. Also, achieving consistency between Part 72 and Part 20 will avoid licensees having to continue to employ two different dose methodologies in the analysis, as is currently the case.

Unfortunately, NRC is not revising the Part 72 criteria for radioactive material in effluents and direct radiation dose from independent spent fuel storage and monitored retrievable storage installations because such a change would be "incompatible with the Environmental Protection Agency's [EPA] regulation at 40 CFR 191.03(a)." The EPA regulation continues to employ an out-of-date dose A

MAY - 7 1998 cknowledged by card...................................

1776 I STREET NW SUITE 400 WASHINGTON, DC 20006-3708 PHONE 202 739 8000 FAX 202 785 4019

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORV COMMISSION AULEMAKINGS & ADJUDICATIONS STAFF OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION Document Statistics Postmark Date S 4 F £ Copies Received ____

/ ____ _

Add'I Copies Reproduced ____

S~p ial istrib tion,~

1>J>,<

J< I 'D..S I

Mr. John C. Hoyle May 4, 1998 Page 2 methodology that is no longer utilized by national and international scientific organizations in the area of radiation protection.

This constraint in the rulemaking on achieving full consistency between Parts 72 and 20 with regard to dose methodology will have the effect of marginalizing the benefits underlying the proposed rule -enhanced flexibility and reduced regulatory burden. Despite this, we encourage NRC to proceed with revising the Part 72 radiation criteria as proposed.

We are aware of the Commission's efforts to seek resolution to the situation *of overlap in regulatory authority between the NRC and EPA that results in duplicative, unnecessary, and burdensome situations such as this one in the proposed rule. We will continue to pursue avenues of our own in support of the Commission's efforts.

If you have any questions or regarding these comments, please contact Mr. Ralph Andersen of our staff at 202-739-8111.

Sincerely, Lynnette Hendricks LXH/RLA/ead

§'EcV DOCKETED USN1 C (7590-01-P)

"98 MAR 19 P 1 :4 7 NUCLEAR REGULA TORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Part 72 RIN: 3150-AF84 Minor Revision of Design Basis Accident Dose Limits for Independent Spent Fuel Storage and Monitored Retrievable Storage Installations AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) proposes to amend its regulations governing the dose limits and the dose calculational methodology used in design basis accident analyses for Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installations (ISFSI) and Monitored Retrievable Storage Installations (MRS). This proposed rule would amend ISFSI and MRS design basis accident dose limits to conform to the dose calculational methodology currently used in the 0

regulations that specify standards for protection against radiation and make a minor change to match the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) regulations. This action is needed to make limits for design basis accidents at ISFSI and MRS installations consistent with dose methodology specified in the regulations, and to afford licensees the flexibility provided by dose methodology when performing design basis accident analyses.

-W-,~ 1/-, I'/ 'I~

DATES: The comment period expires {6 aays after elate of puelieatien in the Feeleff!II Register.)

Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the Commission is able to assure consideration only for comments received on or before this date.

ADDRESSES: Mail written comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff. Comments may be delivered to One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852, between 7:30 ar:n and 4: 15 pm on Federal workdays.

You may also provide comments via the NRC's interactive rulemaking web site through the NRC home page (http://www.nrc.gov). This site provides the availability to upload comments as files (any format) if your web browser supports that function. For information about the interactive rulemaking site, contact Ms. Carol Gallagher, (301) 415-6215; e-mail CAG@nrc.gov.

Certain documents related to this rulemaking, including comments received, may be examined at the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street NW., (Lower Level), Washington, DC. These same documents also may be viewed and downloaded electronically via the interactive rulemaking website established by NRC for this rulemaking.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Naiem S. Tanious, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone (301) 415-6103, E-mail: INTERNET:NST@NRC.GOV SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Paragraph (b) of section 72.106 establishes the dose limit for a design basis accident at an independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI) or a monitored retrieval storage installation 2

(MRS). The dose limit in§ 72.106(b) is based on the dose calculational methodology contained in International Commission on Radiological Protection Publication Number 2 (ICRP-2, 1959).

The ICRP-2 methodology wa.s subsequently revised in ICRP Publication Number 26 (ICRP-26, 1977), and was incorporated into 1 O CFR Part 20 when Part 20 was revised in 1991.

The calculational methodology in the revised Part 20 no longer quantifies dose in terms of whole body dose and individual organ dose. Instead, the dose is quantified as a risk equivalent dose. In this manner, the doses absorbed by the whole body and the individual organs can be summed to a single quantity relating to risk.

Under the Part 20 calculational methodology, deep-dose equivalent (HJ, which applies to the external whole-body exposure, is defined at 1 O CFR 20.1003 as the dose equivalent at a tissue depth of 1 cm (1000 mg/cm2). The committed dose equivalent (COE) (Hr.so) is defined at

§ 20.1003 to mean the dose equivalent to organs or tissues of reference (T) that will be received from an intake of radioactive material by an individual during the SO-year period following the intake. The committed effective dose equivalent (CEDE) (HE.50) is defined at § 20.1003 as the sum of the products of the weighting factors applicable to each of the body organs or tissues that are irradiated and the committed dose equivalent to these organs or tissues (HE,50 = I,wrHr,so).

Tha-total effective dose equivalent (TEDE) is the sum of the deep-dose equivalent (for external exposure) and the committed effective dose equivalent (for internal exposures).

The ICRP-26 methodology was not incorporated into Part 72 at the time Part 20 was r---

revised. Part 72 contains two regulations that specify dose limits: § 72.104, which sets dose limits during normal operations and anticipated occurrences; and § 72.106, which sets dose limits for design basis accidents..

• The main objective of this proposed rule is to revise§ 72.106(b) to incorporate the methodology in 1 O CFR Part 20. A second objective of the rule is to make a minor word change to§ 72.104(a) to match the language used by EPA in 40 CFR 191.03(a).

3

Discussion At pres.ant, § 72.106(b), Controlled area of an ISFSI or MRS provides:

(b) Any individual located on or beyond the nearest boundary of the controlled area shall not receive a dose greater than 5 rem to the whole body or any organ from any design basis accident. The minimum distance from the spent fuel or high-level radioactive waste handling and storage facilities to the nearest boundary of the controlled area shall be at least 100 meters.

This 0.05 Sv (5 rem) limit to the whole body or any organ would be amended in the proposed rule to conform with the Part 20 dose calculational methodology. The amended limit would become the more limiting of the TEDE of 0.05 Sv (5 rem), or the sum of the deep dose equivalent and the committed dose equivalent to any i~dividual organ or tissue (other than the lens of the eye) of 0.5 Sv (50 rem). The amendment would also include a separate dose limit for the lens of the eye of 0.15 Sv (15 rem); and for the skin or any extremity, a shallow dose equivalent of 0.5 Sv (50 rem). The use of separate dose limits for the eye, skin, and extremities would conform with the dose calculational methodology used in Part 20 and would ensure that no observable effects (e.g., induction of cataracts in the lens of the eye) would occur as a result of any accidental radiation exposure.

This action would make § 72.106 consistent with Part 20 dose calculational methodology.

This action would also provide Part 72 licensees flexibility when performing design basis accident analyses because they would be able to use organ weighting factors to calculate the dose to the maximally exposed organ. In addition, Part 72 licensees would no longer need to comply with 4

one calculational methodology for their radiation protection programs (i.e., the revised Part 20 methodology) and another methodology for their design basis accident analyses.

This proposed rule does not revise § 72.104(a) to incorporate ICRP-26 methodology because doing so would render this regulation incompatible with the Environmental Protection Agency's regulation at 40 CFR 191.03(a) which is applicable to ISFSI and MRS licensees.

However, 40 CFR 191.03(a) phrases the standard in terms of dose limits to the whole body and any critical organ; whereas, § 72.104(a) phrases the standard in terms of dose limits to the whole body and any organ. The NRC staff proposes to make§ 72.104(a) more consistent with 40 CFR 191.03(a) by inserting the word critical before the word organ. The critical organ (listed in Table 1 of ICRP-2) associated with an intake of radioactive material is considered to be that organ of the body whose damage by the radiation results in the greatest damage to the body.

\\

5

Environmental Impact: Categorical Exclusion The NRC has determined that this proposed regulation is the type of action described in categorical exclusion 10 CFR 51.22(c)(2). Therefore neither an environmental impact statement nor an environmental assessment have been prepared for this proposed regulation.

Paperwork Reduction Act Statement This proposed rule does not contain a new or amended information collection requirement, and therefore is not subject to requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). Existing information collection requirements were approved by the Office of Management and Budget, approval numbers 3150-0002, 3150-0127, and 3150-0132.

Public Protection Notification If an information collection does not display a currently valid 0MB control number, the NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, the information collection.

Regulatory Analysis To determine whether the amendments to 1 0 CFR Part 72 are appropriate, the NRC staff considered the following two alternatives:

1. The No-Action Alternative. This alternative is not acceptable to the NRC for the following reasons. Section 72.106(b) would continue to be inconsistent with Part 20. Part 72 6

licensees would demonstrate compliance with the dose limits in Part 20 using the 1977 dose calculational methodology of ICRP-26 for their radiation protection programs as required by §§ 72.24(e) and 72.44(d). However, Part 72 licensees would continue to use the 1959 dose calculational methodology of ICRP-2 in addressing radiation dose from a design basis accident as required in§ 72.106(b). Thus, licensees would not be able to take advantage of the flexibility provided by the dose calculational methodology used in Part 20 when performing design basis accident analyses. Therefore, this alternative was not pursued.

2. Amendments of 10 CFR Part 72. In this option, the NRC staff considered preparing a proposed rule to amend the dose limiting design objective in§ 72.106(b) to 5 rem TEDE. This is consistent with the intent of the existing§ 72.106(b) and updates the dose calculational methodology to that used for demonstration of compliance with Part 20. Updating the dose calculational methodology also would increase the organ dose limit, COE, from 5 rem to 50 rem; allow for the use of risk-based weighting factors for each organ or tissue to determine the 50 year CEDE; and provide licensees with additional flexibility in conducting and submitting design basis accident analyses to demonstrate compliance with the requirements in§ 72.106(b).

In addition to the increased flexibility provided, licensees would no longer need to comply with one calculational methodology for radiation protection programs (i.e., the revised Part 20 methodology) and another methodology for design basis accident analyses.

Moreover, design basis accident analyses for ISFSls and M_RS installations would use the same dose calculational methodology as design basis accident analyses for a geologic repository operations area (1 O CFR 60.136(b)). This alternative was chosen by the NRC.

This constitutes the regulatory analysis for this proposed rule. As discussed above, this rule does not impose any new requirements. Therefore, there will be no additional cost burden to Part 72 licensees or the Federal Government.

7

Regulatory Flexibility Certification As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 605(b), the Commission certifies that this rule, if adopte_d, will not have a significant economic impact upon a substantial number of small entities. The proposed rule would provide licensees with additional flexibility in conducting and submitting design basis accident analyses to demonstrate compliance with the requirements in § 72.106(b). In addition, the licensees would no longer need to comply with one calculational methodology for their radiation protection programs o.e., the revised Part 20 methodology) and another methodology for their design basis accident analyses.

The proposed rule, if adopted, would not impose any additional obligations on entities that may fall within the definition of "small entities" as set forth in Section 601 (3) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act; or within the definition of "small business" as found in Section 3 of the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. 632; or within the size standards adopted by the NRC on April 11, 1995 (60 FR 18344).

8

Backfit Analysis The NRC has determined that the backfit rule, 10 CFR 72.62, does not apply to this proposed rule, and a backfit analysis is not required, because these amendments do not involve any provisions that would impose backfrts as defined in 10 CFR 72.62(a). The rule does not constitute a backfit under 10 CFR 72.62, because it does not require a change to existing structures, systems, components, procedures, or organization. Further, the rule would not result in a more stringent outcome than the existing rule, and therefore current licensees who are in compliance with the existing rule would not be required to make any changes or take any action.

New applicants and license renewal applications would be able to take advantage of some additional flexibility in the dose calculations that is afforded by the rule.

Agreement State Implementation Issues Under the "Policy Statement on Adequacy and Compatibility of Agreement State Programs" approved by the Commission on June 30, 1997 (62 FR 46517), this rule is classified as compatibility Category "NRC." This regulation addresses areas of exclusive NRC authority.

However, a State may adopt these provisions for the purposes of clarity and communication, as long as the State does not adopt regulations or program elements that would cause the State to regulate this area.

9

List of Subjects in 1 O CFR Part 72 Criminal penalties, Manpower training programs, Nuclear materials, Occupational safety and health, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Spent fuel.

For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended; the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amend~d; and 5 U.S.C. 553; the Commission is proposing to adopt the following amendments to 10 CFR Part 72.

PART 72 - LICENSING REQUIREMENTS FOR THE INDEPENDENT STORAGE OF SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL AND HIGH-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE

1. The authority citation for Part 72 continues to read as follows:

AUTHORITY: Secs. 51, 53, 57, 62, 63, 65, 69, 81, 161, 182, 183, 184, 186, 187, 189, 68 Stat. 929,930, 932, 933, 934, 935, 948, 953, 954, 955, as amended, sec. 234, 83 Stat. 444, as l

amended(42U.S.C.2071,2073,2077,2092,2093,2095, 2099,2111,2201,2232,2233,2234, 2236, 2237, 2238, 2282); sec. 274, Pub. L 86--373, 73 Stat. 688, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2021);

sec. 201, as amended, 202, 206, 88 Stat. 1242, as amended, 1244, 1246 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846); Pub. L.95-601, sec. 10, 92 Stat. 2951 as amended by Pub. L 102-486, sec. 7902, 106 Stat. 3123 (42 U.S.C. 5851); sec. 102, Pub. L 91-190, 83 Stat. 853 (42 U.S.C. 4332); secs. 131, 132, 133, 135, 137, 141, Pub. L.97-425, 96 Stat. 2229, 2230, 2232, 2241, sec. 148, Pub. L. 100-203, 101 Stat. 1330-235 (42 U.S.C. 10151, 10152, 10153, 10155, 10157, 10161, 10168).

Section 72.44(g) also issued under secs. 142(b) and 148(c), (d), Pub. L 100-203, 101 Stat. 1330-232, 1330-236 (42 U.S.C. 10162(b), 10168(c), (d)). Section 72.46 also issued under 10

sec. 189, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2239); sec. 134, Pub. L.97-425, 96 Stat. 2230 (42 U.S.C.

10154). Section 72.96(d) also issued under sec. 145(g), Pub. L. 100-203, 101 Stat. 1330-235 (42 U.S.C. 10165(g)). Subpart J also issued under secs. 2(2), 2(15), 2(19), 117(a}, 141(h), Pub.

L.97-425, 96 Stat. 2202, 2203, 2204, 2222, 2224 (42 U.S.C. 10101, 10137(a), 10161(h)).

Subparts Kand Lare also issued under sec. 133, 98 Stat. 2230 (42 U.S.C. 10153) and sec. 218(a), 96 Stat. 2252 (42 U.S.C. 10198).

§ 72.104 [Amended]

2. In§ 72.104, the introductory sentence of paragraph (a) is revised to read as follows:

§ 72.104 Criteria for radioactive materials in effluents and direct radiation from an ISFSI or MRS.

(a) During normal operations and anticipated occurrences, the annual dose equivalent to any real individual who is located beyond the controlled area must not exceed 25 mrem to the whole body, 75 mrem to the thyroid and 25 mrem to any other critical organ as a result of exposure to:

3. In§ 72.106, paragraph (b) is revised to read as follows:

'-,... (.,)/*"'-

~

§ 72.106 Controlled area of an ISFSI or MRS.

~

JIit~ ~

(b) Any individual located on or beyond the nearest boundary of the controlled area~

not receive from any design basis accident the more limiting of a total effective dose equivalent of 0.05 Sv (5 rem), or the sum of the deep-dose equivalent and the committed dose equivalent to any individual organ or tissue (other than the lens of the eye) of 0.5 Sv (50 rem).

11

The eye dose equivalent shall not exceed 0.15 Sv (15 rem) and the shallow dose equivalent to skin or to any extremity shall not exceed 0.5 Sv (50 rem). The minimum distance from the,

spent fuel or high-level radioactive waste handling and storage facilities to the nearest bounda MV$C of the controlled area ~t least 100 meters.

.31S/

d J/

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this_, ___ day of~

1998.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

L. Jos Executiv r for Operations.

12

From:

To:

Date:

Subject:

Hi Adria, Carol Gallagher WND1.WNP2.ATB1 3/19/98 1:35pm Two more published FRNs PRM-72-4 was published in the FR on 3/12/98 and a Proposed Rule on Minor Revisions of Design Basis Accident Dose Limits for Independent Spent Fuel Storage and Monitored Retrievable Storage Installations was noted in the FR today.

Please send me a copy of any comment letters you may receive on these notices.

Thanks, Carol Gallagher