ML20065B845

Forwards Jr Miller marked-up Memo to V Stello Re Impact of Proposed Safeguards Upgrade Rule on Nonpower Reactors.Memo Should Have Been Referenced as Exhibit in 830208 Filing

ML20065B845
Person / Time
Site:	05000142
Issue date:	02/14/1983
From:	Bay J COMMITTEE TO BRIDGE THE GAP
To:	Frye J Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
NUDOCS 8302230523
Download: ML20065B845 (5)

Text

__ .

v'rriE?

,y-

?nree Embarcadero Center 03 8 22 r swappty-Third Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 February 14, 1983 y, [ ~

EXPRESS MAIL DOCKET NUMBER -

John H. Frye, III, Chairman -

N" Atomic Safety & Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Room 439 East-West Washington, D.C. 20555

Dear Judge Frye:

Enclosed please find a copy of a memorandum addressed to Victor Stello, Jr., Director Division of Operating Reactors, from James R. Miller, Assistant Director for Reactor Safeguards, Division of Operating Reactors,

Subject:

Impact of Proposed Safeguards

" Upgrade" Rule on Non-Power Reactors. This document was received by Bridge the Gap in response to its FOIA request. It was inadvertently not included as an exhibit to Bridge the Gap's February 8, 1983 submittal. It should have been referenced as an exhibit at the end of the sentence ending on page 2, line 25.

Our apologies for the oversight. If you have any questions regarding this addendum, please feel free to contact me.

Very truly yours,

,COMMITTE 70 BRIDGE THE GAP

/ ,

R / g/

By M~ /

John ti. Bay JHB:bh enclosure ,

8302230523 830214 PDR ADOCK 05000142 O PDR

c . e.

., . .i ,A./ - . . .

f/

' /'3 '. J. ' 5 , 7 s .

. I

._; & q .

. /: 2

!y 4 f-'

., i/p L6 MEMORAriDUM FOR: Victor Stello, Jr., Dire.ctor l' , j/ A,. , . ,_

Division of Operating Reactors f

/

l FROM: James R. Miller, Assistant Director ' / ', - Or~4 d% j!'$

for Reactor Safeguards j,A_U t Division of Operating Reactors '

C  ;

7 l

SUBJECT:

IMPACT OF PROPOSED SAFEGUARDS " UPGRADE" RULE ON :0ti-POWER REACTORS Since late January,1979 we have visited twenty-two non-cower reactor licensee

. . facilities (28 reactors) to assess their capability to mset the recuirements of the proposed Category II/III Rule. The number of reactors visited represents a broad spectrum of the different type of non-power reactors that fall under the proposed rules.

I initially informed you that six licensees would be affected' by the " Upgrade" rule because they possessed formula quantities of unirradiated special nuclear material. Subsequently three of the six have, found that they can reduce their inventory to less than formula quantities and still operzte effectively. Of the remaining three, one has stated it can reduce its inventory through the use of reflectors and another has proposed to store their unirradiated fuel at i several different sitas and provide adequate physical protection. The ics:

one of the above 3 facilities has indicated that they will be unable to provide the physical protection features of the " Upgrade" rule because of the cost factors involved and this licensee apparently cannot further reduce his inventory.

i This identifies what we once believed would be the .only impact of the ' Upgrade" rule on non-power reactors; however, as a result of a co-tinuir.g examination of the current and procosed safeguards rules, we have nc idsntified i significant

. umber (23 facilities. 27 reactors) that could possibly :D e ur.de- thi "'Jp;rade" rule. (A list of those affected is attached.) This sit.atica oc:urrsd because s -~ n 4 o-

' lictor Stello, Jr. --

current and proposed regulations do not clearly identify require #.ents for non-power reactors.

. ~

c The following sets forth the protectd63 requirements or the current and proposed rules. Part 73.50 physical protection requirements do not apply to material located in the reactor core or material contained in irradiated fuel elements reroved from the reactor core without regard to radiation levels. Only unirradiated material is accounted for in determining the physical protection requirements to be applied to a facility. Consequently, the. twenty-three licensees identified are not curr 'ntly required to provide the physical protection associated with possession of formula quantities of special nuclear material. This exemotion will be eliminat ed with the oublication of the "Uoarade" rule. The only other solution would be to irradiate and maintain the material to a self-protecting

~~

level. As we now see the situation jthe fuel elements associated with these reactors cannot ettain or sustain a total external radiation dose rate in excess of 100 rems per hour at three feet; therefore,these non-power reactors will cone under the " Upgrade" rule. The only >immediately foreshable solution is to renove non-power reactors from the proposed safeguards rules and concurrently

prepare a separate physical protection rule for non-power. reactors.

Clearly,10 CFR 73.55 has provided us with an insight on how important it is to have a viable rule designed to protect a specific type facility. I believe we shculd consider it as a lesson learned:

Ie:auss of tie above, we are taking steps to:

1. Inforn the Commission of our concerns, particuljriy the fact that there will be more than 20 non-power reactors affected by crorulga-ion of the rule as written. -

.. .n .

Vic cr Stello, Jr. --

2. Initiate a Commission paper requesting that non-power reactors be excluded from the currently proposed safe. guards rules, and . .. . -

3. Draft, a new rule designed to protect non-power reactor facilities even though Standards and tiMSS have not concurred with this action in the past. -

h i .

/-

gg ..

.~

& ' C A J f f

dames R. Miller, As,sistant Director for Reactor Safeguards Division of Operating P.eactors We e

a e

. - - - c

- . ~ . - _ - . _ _- - - - . - - . . . - _.

. ..:" :.7 - .

te wo teo. ub iW N0i!-P0',.'ER REACTOR FACILITIES POSSESSE4 GREATER inAN FORM'JLA QUANTITIES OF SPECIAL NUCLEAR MATERI AL u pbr a.

rs c PCcPch tb "a.N .0..'.M Q ed

~ .

tihPT16%Eszt3au. . - -

General Atomic General Electric Test Reactor '

General Electric NTR Georgia Institute of Technology Massachusetts Institute of Technology j

regon State University 4

Pennsylvania' State University 1

Rhode Island AEC Texas A&M University

! $ Union Carbide

.l' l g University of California at Los Angeles f University of Michigan University of Missouri (Colurabia) 4

) University of Missouri (Rolla)

I I

', University of Virginia i University of Washington g

University of Wisconsin i

l Virginia Polytechnic Institute

{ ,

Washington State ' University

. . u . --. .

\  !%-9@4Pl . -s

\ Ultional Bureau of. Standaros

• Rergsselaer Polytechnic Institute

/

' estingneuse gra:n1og Reactor /

Ev  ;+ n . :, . .< , s

-t- --v r -, ---,e * . v----r-- , ,s.-+-- ,--------,-y ww--,,---- -,vww---- ---