ML23156A387
| ML23156A387 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 05/29/1992 |
| From: | Chilk S NRC/SECY |
| To: | |
| References | |
| PR-073, 57FR22670 | |
| Download: ML23156A387 (1) | |
Text
DOCUMENT DATE:
TITLE:
CASE
REFERENCE:
KEYWORD:
ADAMS Template: SECY-067 05/29/1992 PR-073 - 57FR22670 - CLARIFICATION OF PHYSICAL PROTECTION REQUIREMENTS AT FIXED SITES PR-073 57FR22670 RULEMAKING COMMENTS Document Sensitivity: Non-sensitive - SUNSI Review Complete
STATUS OF RULEMAICING PROPOSED RULE:
PR-073 OPEN ITEM (Y/N) N RULB NAME:
CLARIFICATION OF PHYSICAL PROTECTION REQUIREMENTS AT FIXED SITES PROPOSED RULE FED REG CITE:
57FR22670 PROPOSED RULE PUBLICATION DATE:
05/29/92 ORIGINAL DATE FOR COMMENTS: 08/12/92 NUMBER OF COMMENTS:
EXTENSION DATE:
I I
1 FINAL RULE FED. REG. CITE: 58FR13699 FINAL RULE PUBLICATION DATE: 03/15/93 NOTES ON FILE LOCATED ON Pl.
TATUS F RULE TO FIND THE STAFF CONTACT OR VIEW THE RULEMAKING HISTORY PRESS PAGE DOWN KEY HISTORY OF THE RULE PART AFFECTED: PR-073 RULE TITLE:
CLARIFICATION OF PHYSICAL PROTECTION REQUIREMENTS AT FIXED SITES ROPOSED RULE PROPOSED RULE DATE PROPOSED RULE SECY PAPER: 92-108 SRM DATE:
03/24/92 SIGNED BY SECRETARY:
05/22/92 FINAL RULE FINAL RULE DATE FINAL RULE SECY PAPER: 93-003 SRM DATE:
02/17/93 SIGNED BY SECRETARY:
03/09/93 STAFF CONTACTS ON THE RULE CONTACTl: DR. SANDRA D. FRATTALI CONTACT2:
MAIL STOP: NLS-129 PHONE: 490-3773 MAIL STOP:
PHONE:
DOCKET NO. PR-073 (57FR22670}
In the Matter of CLARIFICATION OF PHYSICAL PROTECTION REQUIREMENTS AT FIXED SITES DATE DATE OF TITLE OR DOCKETED DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENT 05/22/92 05/22/92 FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE - PROPOSED RULE 07/28/92 07/24/92 COMMENT OF LOUISIANA ENERGY SERVICES (PETER G. LEROY, LICENSING MANAGER} (
l}
03/18/93 03/09/93 FINAL RULE PUBLISHED AT 58 FR 13699 ON 3/15/93.
[7590-01-P]
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Part 73
- 93 NA 18 Pl2 :QO RIN:
3150-AEOS Clarification of Physical Protection Requirements at Fixed Sites AGENCY:
Nuclear Regulatory Co11111ission.
ACTION:
Final rule.
SUMMARY
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is amending its general physical protection requirements for fixed sites. This action is necessary to clarify the Co11111ission's regulatory intent.
This amendment makes it clear that the Co11111ission's regulations do not require protection against both radiological sabotage and theft of special nuclear material {SNM) at all facilities.
The Co11111ission is also adding a requirement that nonpower reactor li censees, who operate at or above 2 megawatts thermal, protect against radiological sabotage where deemed necessary.
EFFECTIVE DATE:
(30 days after publication in the Federal Register]
ADDRESSES:
The final regulatory analysis and environmental assessment for the rule is available for inspection at the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 -L Street NW. (Lower Level), Washington, DC.
1 yJuir. r
- o), 5 I", --::, J s ii' F= /2..1\\) I ~lo 9 "i V
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Dr. Sandra D. Frattali, Division of Regulatory Applications, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, telephone {301) 492-3773.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The Commission is concerned that its regulations regarding physical protection requirements could be interpreted as requiring protection against both radiological sabotage and theft of special nuclear material at all fixed sites.
The Commission is clarifying the language of the current rule to prevent this interpretation. Additionally, the Commission is concerned that for some nonpower reactors authorized to operate at or above 2 megawatts thermal, the possibility of sabotage leading to a significant radiological release, though remote, should not be discounted.
The Commission has decided to add a requirement to its regulations to address this issue.
The Commission published a proposed rule in the Federal Register on May 29, 1992 (57 FR 22670), to address these concerns.
The proposed rule clarified the physical protection requirements at fixed sites by amending the wording of§ 73.40 to make it clear that if a licensee satisfies the specific requirements in Part 73 that apply to its specific class of facility, material, or activity, then the general need for physical protection is satisfied. The proposed rule also added an explicit requirement to § 73.60 for protection against radiological sabotage where deemed necessary.
It should be noted that* those nonpower reactor licensees currently operating at or above 2 megawatts thermal, who have been identified as possibly being vulnerable to radiological sabotage, 2
are voluntarily implementing additional measures to provide physical protection against radiological sabotage.
The 75-day public comment period expired on August 12, 1992.
One comment was received.
Public Comment on the Proposed Rule The commenter supported the proposed rule. There are no changes in the regulatory requirements of this final rule from those published as the proposed rule.
In addition, the commenter interpreted the proposed rule to mean that if the physical protection system for a uranium enrichment facility that possessed only special nuclear material of low strategic significance satisfied the requirements of§§ 73.67(a),(f),and (g), then the requirements of§ 73.40 would be satisfied.
The Commission agrees that this interpretation is correct.
There was no public comment on the amendment to § 73.60 requiring additional protection for nonpower reactors.
This rule is issued pursuant to Sections 161(b) and (i) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended.
Finding of No Significant Environmental Impact:
Availability The Commission has determined under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, and the Commission's regulations in Subpart A of 10 CFR Part 51, that this rule is not a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment and, therefore, an environmental impact statement is not required.
The amendment to § 73.40 3
clari~ies that the Commission's regulations do not require protection against both radiological sabotage and theft of special nuclear material at all facilities, which simply codifies existing NRC practice.
Consequently, no environmental impacts are associated with this amendment.
The amendment to
§ 73.60 requires certain nonpower reactor licensees, who operate at or above 2 megawatts thermal, to protect against radiological sabotage where deemed necessary.
Facilities affected by the amendment to § 73.60 are already.
voluntarily implementing this requirement, and therefore, no consequences to the environment will occur due to this rulemaking.
The amendment to§ 73.60 also requires future nonpower reactor licensees to provide physical protection against radiological sabotage if an analysis of the reactor's characteristics and fuel used therein indicates that such protection is necessary.
For a future licensee, any environmental impacts associated with this requirement will be included in the Environmental Impact Statement prepared in support of that license application. The environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact on which this determination i~ based is available for inspection at the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street NW. (Lower Level),
Washington, DC.
Single copies are available from Dr. Sandra D. Frattali,
,Division of Regulatory Applications, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, telephone (301) 492-3773.
Paperwork Reduction Act Statement This final rule contains no new or amended information collection requirements and therefore is not subject to the requirements of the Paperwork 4
Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
Existing requirements were approved by the Office of Management and Budget, approval number 3150-0002.
Regulatory Analysis The Commission has prepared a regulatory analysis for thi's final regulation.
The analysis examines the costs and benefits of the alternatives considered by the Commission.
The analysis is available for inspection in the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 l Street NW. (lower Level); Washington, DC.
Single copies of the analysis may be obtained from Dr. Sandra D. Frattali, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, (301) 492-3773.
Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 605(b), the Commission hereby certifies that this rule does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
There is no economic impact on any current or future licensee except for certain nonpower reactor licensees. However, nonpower reactor licensees do not fall within the scope of "small entities" set forth in Section 601(3) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 15 U.S.C. 632, or the Small Business Size Standards set out in regulations issued by the Small Business Administration in 13 CFR Part 121.
5
Backfit Analysis The Commission has determined that the backfit rule, 10 CFR 50.109, does not apply to this final rule because the amendment to § 73.40 does not impose requirements on existing nuclear power reactor licensees, and the amendment to
§ 73.60 applies only to nonpower reactors. Therefore, a backfit analysis was not prepared for this final rule.
List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 73 Part 73 - Criminal Penalties, Hazardous materials - transportation, Incorporation by reference, Nuclear materials, Nuclear power plants and reactors, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures.
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. 552 and 553, the NRC is adopting the following amendments to 10 CFR Part 73.
PART 73--PHYSICAL PROTECTION OF PLANTS AND MATERIALS
- 1.
The authority citation for Part 73 continues to read as follows:
AUTHORITY:
Secs. 53, 161, 68 Stat. 930, 948, as amended, sec. 147, 94 Stat. 780 (42 U.S.C. 2073, 2167, 2201); sec. 201, as amended, 204, 88 Stat. 1242, as amendea, 1245 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5844).
6
Section 73.1 also issued under secs. 135, 141, Pub. L.97-425, 96 Stat. 2232, 2241 (42 U.S.C. 10155, 10161).
Section 73.37(f) also issued under sec. 301, Pub. L.96-295, 94 Stat. 789 (42 U.S.C. 5841 note)..
Section 73.57 is issued under sec. 606, Pub. L.99-399, 100 Stat. 876 (42 u.s.c. 2169).
2..
Section 73.40 is revised to read as follows:
§ 73.40 Physical protection:
General requirements at fixed sites.
Each licensee shall provide physical protection at *a fixed site, or contiguous sites where ljcensed activities are conducted, against radiological sabotage, or against theft of special nuclear material, or against both, in accordance with the applicable sections of this Part for each speci'fic class of facility or material license.
If applicable, the licensee shall establish and maintain physical security in accordance with security plans approved by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
- 3.
In § 73.60, the section heading is revised and paragraph ( f) is added to read as follows:
§73.60 Additional requirements for physical protection at nonpower reactors.
( f)
In addition to the fixed-site requirements set forth in this section and in § 73.67, the Commission may require, depending on the individual facility and site conditions, any alternate or additional measures 7
deemed necessary to protect against radiological sabotage at nonpower reactors licensed to operate at or above a power l~ekof 2 megawatts thermal.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this day of ~
, 1993.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Secretary of the Commission.
8
LOUISIANA E~ ERGY
- 92 JUL 28 P 2 :56 July 24, 1992 Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Attention: Docketing and Service Branch
Subject:
Louisiana Energy Services Claiborne Enrichment Center Clarification of Physical Protection Requirements at Fixed Sites File: MTS-6046-00-2001.01 (iJ Post Office Box l 004 Charlotte, NC 28201-1004 Below are Louisiana Energy Services' (LES) comments on the proposed rule "Clarification of Physical Protection Requirements at Fixed Sites" published in the Federal Register on May 29, 1992 (57 FR 22670).
As requested by the notice, enclosed is disk which contains a copy of this letter in Wordperfect 5.1 format.
LES agrees with the proposed change and the proposed wording for 10 CFR § 73.40(a).
However, the Supplementary Information should note one stimulus for this change was receipt of a license application for a uranium enrichment facility (i.e., the LES license application submitted January 31, 1991).
We suggest adding the following to the Supplementary Information to the final rule.
After
".... then the general need for physical protection as described in§ 73.40(a) is satisfied," add:
For example, a uranium enrichment fac i lity that possesses only material of low strategic significance and whose physical protection system satifies the requirements of 10 CFR §§ 73.67(a), (f), and (g), satisfies the requirements of 10 CFR § 73.40(a).
SEP 18 ~ --:
AclfflovAedged by CAfd............ "111111nn11 ""'"
V.S. NUC -*
DO::~:_. *,.~
\\
l.,*. _I I
I J
- ** (: I
.,~._, :,:.* '):'4
Jul y 24, 1992 Secretary, USNRC Page 2 Please call me at (704) 373-8466 if there are any questions concerning this.
Sincerely, p~1:~y~
Licensing Manager PGL/N62.792 Enclosure (computer disk)
DOCKET NUMBER Rft 7 ?>
- PROPOSED RULE r
( 5 7 F fl ?-"1r67 0)
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Part 73 RIN:
3150-AEOS DOCKETED
[ 7 590-di1NRC
'92 MAY 22 P 4 :44
,: rr /l"l" o;- 5['.:
Tt~
I Jl;flt ; i tJ' i 1,
1 ;
11 f Clarification of Physical Protection Requirements at Fixed Sites AGENCY:
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION:
Proposed rule.
SUMMARY
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is proposing to amend its general physical protection requirements for fixed sites to clarify its regulatory intent.
This amendment would make clear that the Commission's regulations do not require protection against both radiological sabotage and theft of special nuclear material (SNM) at ill facilities. The Commission is also proposing to add a requirement that nonpower reactor l icensees who operate at or above 2 megawatts thermal protect against radiological sabotage.
a-/,~Ji 1..
DATES:
Comment period expires (insert a date 75 days after publication in the Federal Register).
Comments received after this date will be considered if it I
is practical to do so, but the NRC is able to assure consideration only for comments received on or before this date.
ADDRESSES:
Mail written comments to the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, Attention: Docketing and Service Branch.
Comments may also be delivered to One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD, between 7:45 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. Federal workdays.
Copies of the draft regulatory analysis, draft environmental assessment, and any comments received may be examined at the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street NW. (Lower Level}, Washington, DC.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Dr. Sandra D. Frattali, Division of Regulatory Applications, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, telephone (301} 492-3773.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Section 73.40(a} currently states, in part, that "Each licensee shall provide physical protection against radiological sabotage and against theft of special nuclear material at the fixed sites where licensed activities are conducted." This general requirement was promulgated in the early 1970's when definitive physical protection requirements did not exist for all classes of licensed facilities, materials, and activities.
In the relicensing hearing for the Argonaut Research Reactor at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA} in 1983, an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB} ruled that the general provision of§ 73.40(a) required all fixed site licensees to protect against both radiological sabotage and theft of SNM.
However, protection against both radiological sabotage and theft of SNM is not 2
necessary at all sites; such a requirement woul d impose unnecessary burdens on some l icensees.
At present, detailed physical protection requirements are provided in Part 73 for each class of licensed facility, material, or activity, including transportation of both unirradiated and irradiated SNM.
If a licensee satisfies the specific requirements in Part 73 that apply to its specific class of facility, material, or activity, then the general need for physical protection as described in § 73.40(a) is satisfied. Because the ASLB view could unnecessarily require some l icensees to provide physical protection measures not warranted by their particular licensed facility, material, or activity, a clarification of§ 73.40(a) is necessary.
The above notwithstanding, in 1987 t he NRC determined that for some nonpower reactors authorized to operate at or above 2 megawatts thermal, the possibility of sabotage leading to a significant radiological release, though remote, should not be discounted.
The Commission's regulations pertaining to nonpower reactors currently contai n requirements for physical protection against theft and diversion of SNM, but no requirement for protection against radiological sabotage. This rulemaking woul d add to§ 73.60, "Additional requirements for physical protection at nonpower reactors," a requirement for protection against radiological sabotage where deemed necessary. It should be noted that those nonpower reactor licensees currently operating at or above 2 megawatts thermal, who have been identifi ed as possibly being vulnerable to radiological sabotage, are voluntarily implementing additional measures to provide physical protection against radi ol ogical sabotage.
There is no alternative to rulemaki ng for clarifying the language in
§ 73.40(a).
The language of the regulati on must be clarified to conform with the Commission's view that fixed.sites should be protected against the actual 3
threat to the public health and safety, whether the threat involves theft of special nuclear material, or radiological sabotage, or both.
There is an alternative to the proposed amendment to§ 73.60, namely, to allow the status quo, i.e., voluntary measures to protect against radiological sabotage, to continue since current practice with voluntary measures has provided adequate protection of the public health and safety.
However, that would not provide such assurance for future licensees. Amending
§ 73.60 will establish the necessary regulatory basis to require protection against radiological sabotage, where deemed necessary, for nonpower reactors operating at or above 2 megawatts thermal.
Submission of Comments in Electronic Format Commenters are encouraged to submit, in addition to the original paper copy, a copy of their comments in electronic format on IBM PC-compatible 5.25-or 3.5-inch computer diskette. Data files should be provided in one of the following formats: WordPerfect, IBM Document Content Architecture/Revisable-Form-Text (DCA/RFT), or unformatted ASCII text.
Finding of No Significant Environmental Impact: Availability The Commission has determined under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, and the Commission's regulations in Subpart A of 10 CFR Part 51, that this rule, if adopted, would not be a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment and, therefore, an environmental impact statement is not required. This proposed 4
amendment to § 73.40(a) will clarify that the Commission's reg ul ations do not require protection against both radiological sabotage and theft of special nuclear material at all facilities, which si mply codifies existing NRC practice. Consequently, no environmental impacts are associated with this amendment.
This proposed amendment to§ 73.60 will require certain nonpower reactor licensees, who operate at or above 2 megawatts thermal, to protect against radiological sabotage where deemed necessary.
Facilities affected by this amendment are already voluntarily implementing this requirement and therefore no consequences to the environment would occur due to this rulemaking.
The proposed amendment to§ 73.60 will also require future nonpower reactor licensees to provide physical protection against radiological sabotage if an analysis of the reactor's characteristics and fuel used therein indicates that such protection is necessary.
For a future licensee, any environmental impacts associated with this requirement would be included in the Environmental Impact Statement prepared in support of that l icense application. The draft environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact on which this determination is based is available for inspection at the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street NW. (Lower Level), Washington, DC.
Single copies are available from Dr. Sandra D. Frattali, Division of Regulatory Applications, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, telephone (301) 492-3773.
5
Paperwork Reduction Act Statement This proposed rule does not contain a new or amended information collection requirement and, thus, is not subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). Exi sting requirements were approved under 0MB clearance number 3150-0002.
Regulatory Analysis The NRC has prepared a draft regulatory analysis for this proposed regulation. The draft analysis examines the costs and benefits of the alternatives considered by the Commission. The draft analysis is available for inspection in the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street NW. (Lower Level), Washington, DC.
Single copies of the analysis may be obtained from Dr. Sandra D. Frattali, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, (301) 492-3773.
Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 605(b), the Commission hereby certifies that this rule will not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. There is no economic impact on any current or future licensee except for certain nonpower reactor licensees. However, nonpower reactor licensees do not fall within the scope of "small entities" set forth in Section 601(3) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 15 U.S.C. 632, or the Small 6
Business Size Standards set out in regulations issued by the Small Business Administration in 13 CFR Part 121.
Backfit Analysis The NRC has determined that the backfit rule, 10 CFR 50.109, does not apply to this proposed rule because the amendment to§ 73.40(a) does not impose requirements on existing nuclear power reactor licensees, and the amendment to§ 73.60 applies only to nonpower reactors. Therefore, a backfit analysis was not prepared for this proposed rule.
List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 73 Part 73 - Criminal Penalties, Hazardous materials - transportation, Incorporation by reference, Nuclear materials, Nuclear power plants and reactors, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures.
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 NRC is proposing to adopt the following amendments to 10 CFR Part 73.
7
PART 73--PHYSICAL PROTECTION OF PLANTS AND MATERIALS
- 1.
The authority citation for Part 73 is revised to read as follows:
AUTHORITY:
Secs. 53, 161, 68 Stat. 930, 948, as amended, sec. 147, 94 Stat. 780 (42 U.S.C. 2073, 2167, 2201); sec. 201, as amended, 204, 88 Stat. 1242, as amended, 1245 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5844).
Section 73.1 also issued under secs. 135, 141, Pub. L.97-425, 96 Stat. 2232, 2241 (42 U.S.C. 10155, 10161). Section 73.37(f) also issued under sec. 301, Pub. L.96-295, 94 Stat. 789 (42 U.S.C. 5841 note). Section 73.57 is issued under sec. 606, Pub. L.99-399, 100 Stat. 876 (42 u.s.c. 2169).
For the purposes of sec. 223, 68 Stat. 958, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2273);
§§ 73.21, 73.37(9), and 73.55 are issued under sec. 161b, 68 Stat. 948, as amended (42 U.S.C. 220l{b)); §§ 73.20, 73.24, 73.25, 73.26, 73.27, 73.37, 73.40, 73.45, 73.46, 73.50, 73.55, and 73.67 are issued under sec. 16li, 68 Stat. 949, as amended {42 U.S.C. 220l{i)); and §§ 73.20(c)(l),
73.24(b){l), 73.26(b){3), {h){6), and {k){4), 73.27{a) and {b), 73.37(f),
73.40(b) and {d), 73.46(9)(6) and (h)(2), 73.50(g){2), {3)(iii)(B), and {h),
73.55(h)(2) and (4)(iii)(B), 73.57, 73.70, 73.71, and 73.72 are issued under sec. 1610, 68 Stat. 950, as amended {42 U.S.C. 2201(0)).
- 2.
In § 73.40, paragraph (a) is revised to read as follows:
§ 73.40 Physical protection: General requirements at fixed sites.
8
(a)
Each licensee shall provide physical protection at a fixed site, or contiguous sites where licensed activities are conducted, against radiol ogical sabotage, or against theft of special nuclear material, or against both, in accordance with the applicable sections of this Part for each speci fic cl ass of facility or material license. If applicable, the licensee shall establ ish and maintain physical security in accordance with security plans approved by the Nuclear Regulatory Convnission.
- 3.
In § 73.60, the section heading is revised and paragraph (f) is added to read as follows:
73.60 Addi tional requirements for physical protection at nonpower reactors.
(f)
In addition to the fixed-site requirements set forth in this section and in § 73.67, the Commission may require, depending on the indi vidual facility and site conditions, any alternate or additional measures 9
deemed necessary to protect against radiological sabotage at nonpower reactors licensed to operate at or above a power level of 2 megawatts thermal.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this "1-........ ~ day of --~---1'---* 1992.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
10