NRC-2021-0170, Comment (6) of C.D. Manning on Behalf of Framatome, Inc. on NRCs Draft NUREG-2159, Acceptable Standard Format and Content for the Material Control and Accounting Plan Required for Special Nuclear Material of Moderate Strategic Signific
| ML22119A007 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Framatome ANP Richland |
| Issue date: | 11/22/2021 |
| From: | Manning C Framatome |
| To: | Office of Administration |
| References | |
| 86FR61795 00006, CDM:21:017, NRC-2021-0170 | |
| Download: ML22119A007 (6) | |
Text
SUNI Review Complete Template=ADM-013 E-RIDS=ADM-03 ADD: Tom Pham, Mary Neely Comment (6)
Publication Date: 11//08/2021 Citation: 86 FR 61795 framatome November 22, 2021 CDM :21 :017 Office of Administration Mail Stop: TWFN-7-A60M U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 ATTN: Program Management, Announcements and Editing Staff
Reference:
- 1) Federal Register, September 23, 2021 (86 FR 52926)
- 2) SNM, 1257, Docket 70-1257
Subject:
Framatome's Comments on Draft NUREG-2159, Docket ID NRC-2021-0170.
Dear Madam or Sir:
Framatome Inc. appreciates the opportunity to comment on NRC's draft NUREG-2159 "Acceptable Standard Format and Content for the Material Control and Accounting Plan Required for Special Nuclear Material of Moderate Strategic Significance: (Reference 1 ).
Draft NUREG-2159 is intended to provide guidance to facilitate compliance with applicable provisions in Subpart D of 10 CFR Part 74. Framatome is providing comments to clarify, and risk inform sections in the draft NUREG.
Attached are Framatome's specific comments regarding daft NUREG-2159.
If you have any information concerning this information, please contact me at 509 375 8237.
Sincerely,
~
IY?n..,HW7' C D. Manning, Manager Licensing and Compliance CDM/rd Cc:
R. Jervey, USNRC NMSS Framatome Inc.
2101 Horn Rapids Road Richland, WA 99354 Tel: (509) 375-8100 www.framatome.com 22709WA-6 (01112/2018)
framatome be:
T J Tate E Calvo-Tone 22709WA-8 {01/12/2018)
framatome Number 1
2 Framatome Inc.
2101 Horn Rapids Road Richland, WA 99354 Tel: (509) 375.. 9100 www.framatome.com NUREG Section Section 2, Item 4; 6 Pg 6, lines 8-18 Section 3.3 Attachment Comment The proposed guidance far exceeds the requirements found in Subpart D 74.41 (c) as well as the similar requirements found in Subpart E for SSNM and is not a credible concern.
74.43(b) (1) A management structure shall be established, documented, and maintained that assures:
(i) Clear overall responsibility for material control and accounting (MC&A) functions.
(ii) Independence from production and manufacturing responsibilities; and (iii) Separation of key responsibilities.
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.
Section 3.3 "MC&A Organization" states:
"An organizational chart and position-by-position description of the entire MC&A organization should be provided. A licensee should designate an individual as the overall manager of the MC&A program, and the MC&A plan must demonstrate the assurance of independence of action and objectivity of decision for the MC&A manager. Two options for meeting the organizational independence are: (1) report directly to the plant or site 22709WA-8 (01/12/2018)
Proposed Resolution Remove the noted text entirely.
Replace with a paragraph stating: "Where the organizational structure is such that a position having responsibility within the 1 O CFR Part 74 MC&A program also has responsibility within the 10 CFR Part 73, "Physical Protection of Plants and Materials," system, the plan will address roles and responsibilities to ensure the MC&A program is not subject to compromise by the actions of a single insider filling the position. A safeguards manager could be an example of such a position."
Replace this wording with similar guidance used in NUREG-1520, Section 2.4.2(8)(3) to read:
"In the organizational hierarchy, the MC&A organization(s) is independent of the operations organization(s), allowing it to provide objective MC&A audit, review, or
framatome manager, or (2) report to an individual who reports to the plant or site control activities. "Independent" means that manager through a management chain with no production responsibilities."
neither organization reports to the other in This guidance is not performance based. Other options can easily meet the an administrative sense. (However, both objectives of the regulation. It is unnecessarily to restrict organization may report to a common manager.) Lines of structures and independent reporting options. This could be particularly responsibility and authority are clearly problematic as advanced reactors look to limit the number of onsite 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 This guidance is not performance based. Other options can easily meet the should be vested to a single individual at an objectives of the regulation. Given the industry need to reduce overhead organizational level sufficient to assure cost, there should be an allowance for MC&A management to have other independence of action and objectiveness duties not specifically related to MC&A.
of decisions)."
4 Section 5.1.3; This Section states that:
Reword to remove the 30 days and state Pg 20, lines "All contractor or offsite laboratory assessment findings and "Findings and recommendations are to be 36-39 addressed consistent with the licensees QA recommendations should be documented and submitted to both the and Corrective Action Program."
measurement control program manager and the overall MC&A manager within 30 days of completion of the review."
This time frame is not specified in the regulations and does not appear to be risk informed.
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, which attributes:... "
must include 6 the following, as appropriate" The language of this sentence mixes requirements, recommendations and provides a conditional out..
22709WA-8 (01112/2018)
Section 6.2; This Section states that:
Reword to state "licensees should Pg 37, lines "Licensees should also commit to having at least two individuals commit to independently verify the 28-31 independently verify the accuracy of the ID and SEID calculations for each accuracy of the ID and SEID total plant material balance."
calculations for each total plant material balance."
This recommendation is not performance based. To invoke two additional verifications for such a highly specialized function is an extreme burden on the licensee with no clear requlatorv basis or safety benefit.
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 bias only applied if it is significant with 95%
corrections to either the accounting records or as an adjustment to ID confidence and exceeds the rounding unless the effect of a single significant bias or the net sum of all significant error."
biases is unusually large."
"unusually large" is an ambiguous term. 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 44 "the bias is greater than 0.01 percent relative" significant at the 95 percent confidence level, and exceeds the rounding error of the affected items. The bias correction is This appears to be a new criterion being introduced without a clear tie to intended to correct the ID. It's impact on regulation.
the SEID should also be propagated, resulting in an adjustment to the SEID."
9 Section 7.5; This Section states that:
Suggest removing the 3 months and state Pg 44, lines
"... physical inventories are performed so as to confirm that a loss or
"... at a frequency that takes onto account 13-14 diversion of a significant quantity of SNM has not occurred: dynamic (i.e., in-the potential for loss or diversion from the process) materials, which is performed on a frequency not to exceed 3 operation" calendar months... "
This requirement is not performance based and there is no direct regulatory basis for the 3 months stated.
2270ff'NA-8 (01112/2018)
framatome 10 Section 8.2; This section provides examples of items that may be exempt from item Also include the guidance from the previous Pg 51, lines control program coverage. This list should expand to include samples.
draft regarding the exemption for laboratory 29-39 samples and reference standards maintained in the laboratory material management system and containing uranium enriched to less than 20 percent in the uranium-235 isotope.
11 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 receipt for generated within 10 days.
loss or damage to the container or T/Ds 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 a 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.
22709\\NA-8 (01/12/2018)