ML13260A030

Letter to R. J. Mccullum Interim Response to September 10, 2012, NEI Submittal: Guidelines for 10 CFR 72.48 Implementation, Revision 0

ML13260A030
Person / Time
Issue date:	09/26/2013
From:	Eric Benner NRC/NMSS/SFST/LID/RIOB
To:	Mccullum R Nuclear Energy Institute
Wharton L
Shared Package
ML13260A029	List: ML13260A030 ML13260A064
References
Download: ML13260A030 (4)

Text

September 26, 2013 Rodney J. McCullum Director of Used Fuel Programs Nuclear Energy Institute 1201 F Street NW, Suite 1100 Washington, DC 20004

SUBJECT:

INTERIM RESPONSE TO SEPTEMBER 10, 2012, NEI SUBMITTAL:

GUIDELINES FOR TITLE 10 OF THE CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS 72.48 IMPLEMENTATION, REVISION 0

Dear Mr. McCullum:

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff is continuing its review of Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) 12-04, Guidelines for 10 CFR 72.48 Implementation, Revision 0 (Agencywide Document Access Management System Accession No. ML12258A354). The NRCs Title10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 72.48 Task Group, which was established several years ago, has been reviewing NEI 12-04, and is providing this interim response. This cover letter provides some comments on the proposed guidance. Enclosure 1 is a markup containing some suggested NRC staff edits of selected NEI guidance sections referenced below, and Enclosure 2 is a clean version of Enclosure 1.

The staff believes that NEIs proposed guidance in Section 2.2.3,10 CFR 72.48 and the 212 Report, does not adequately capture the NRC staff positions stated in NRC Regulatory Issue Summary (RIS) 2012-05, Clarifying the Relationship between 10 CFR 72.212 and 10 CFR 72.48 Evaluations. The Enclosures contain text from the RIS that the staff suggests be inserted into Section 2.2.3.

The NRC staff is not persuaded that there is a need to provide new guidance regarding the 10 CFR 72.48(a)(1) definition of Change. For example, NEI proposes adding new guidance in this regard in Section 1.3, [Use of the Word Change.] Also, in several places, the proposed 2012 guidance differs from the 2001 guidance in using words such as modification or activity in place of change. The staffs view is that revising the existing guidance in this regard introduces ambiguity and would thus not be appropriate. Sections 4.6, 4.7 and 5.1.2 in the Enclosures are edited accordingly.

The NEI draft guidance proposed definition of Adoption in Section 3.4 contains language that appears to be inconsistent with the October 4, 1999, Statements of Consideration (SOC) for the final rule, 10 CFR Parts 50 and 72: Changes, Tests, and Experiments (64 FR 53582). NEI states in Section 3.4 that A general licensee can adopt a generic activity without performing a separate 72.48 review. But the October 4, 1999, SOC (Section O.1 on page 53601) states as follows:

The Commission envisioned that a general licensee who wants to adopt a change to the design of a spent fuel storage cask it possesses - which change was previously made to the generic design by the certificate holder under the provisions of Sec. 72.48 - would be required to perform a separate evaluation under the provisions of Sec. 72.48 to determine the suitability of the change for itself.

R. McCullum Section 4.7 of the 2012 draft guidance contains this quote from the 1999 SOC. If in the NEIs view a general licensee can - consistent with the 1999 SOC -- adopt a generic activity without performing a separate 72.48 review, NEI will need to justify this position, and show that Sections 3.4 and 4.7 are internally consistent.

The Enclosures include edits to Section 3.4 reflecting the above comment, and edits to related Section 2.1.5, Miscellaneous Guidance. This latter set of proposed guidance is cross-referenced in Section 3.4, and pertains to the use by licensees of spent fuel storage cask design changes developed by those holding a certificate of compliance (CoC).

The text of Section 3.14, Implementation of 72.48-Authorized Activity, is not clear, in that the need to add a definition of implementation, which would define this term in two different contexts, is not explained in the discussion. Section 3.14 relates to the 10 CFR 72.48(d)(6) requirement to provide notification of changes in spent fuel storage cask designs within 60 days of when such changes are implemented. Under the proposed definition of implementation, when this 60-day notification requirement is triggered would be different for a CoC holder than for a licensee. This difference needs to be justified.

The NEI draft guidance in Section 5.1.2, Screening for Adverse Effects, is similar to the 2001 guidance at pages 35-36, but the following text (contained in footnote 2 of the 2001 guidance at

p. 36) is not included: [A]ny change that alters a design basis limit for a fission product barrier

- positively or negatively - is considered adverse and must be screened in. This quoted text appears to be based on the following NRC guidance stated in the 1999 SOC (64 FR at 53597),

which indicates that not all positive changes can be screened out:

The rule language that provides that a design basis limit may not be altered provides important and needed assurance. Changes that involve alteration of the design basis limit for a fission product barrier involve such a fundamental alteration of the facility design that a change, even in the conservative direction, should receive prior NRC review.

To the extent that Section 5.1.2 indicates that all positive changes can be screened out, the proposed 2012 guidance is not consistent with the 1999 SOC. Staff suggested edits to the first paragraph of Section 5.1.2 are in the Enclosures, and are consistent with the above comments.

For the remaining paragraphs of Section 5.1.2, the staff suggests that the text more closely adhere to pages 36-37 of the 2001 guidance (e.g., use of the word change rather than activity).

The staffs last interim comment is that the order of Chapters 2 and 3 should be reversed. The staff believes that presenting the definitions earlier in the guidance document would improve readability, clarity, and implementation of the proposed guidance.

R. McCullum If you have any questions regarding the staff edits, please contact Raynard Wharton. He can be reached at (301) 287-9196. If you are interested in discussing the review in a public meeting, propose a meeting date to the Project Manager, Steve Ruffin at (301) 287-0688, and he will coordinate the meeting.

Sincerely, John Woodfield acting for /RA/

Eric J. Benner, Chief Rules, Inspections and Operations Branch Division of Spent Fuel Storage and Transportation Office of Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards cc: Kristopher Cummings, NEI - Selected NRC Staff Edits of NEI 12-04, Guidelines for 10 CFR 72.48 Implementation, Revision 0 (Marked-up copy) - Selected NRC Staff Edits of NEI 12-04, Guidelines for 10 CFR 72.48 Implementation, Revision 0 (Clean copy)

R. McCullum If you have any questions regarding the review, please contact Raynard Wharton. He can be reached at (301) 287-9196. If you are interested in discussing the review in a public meeting, propose a meeting date to Steve Ruffin, and he will coordinate the meeting.

Sincerely, John Woodfield acting for /RA/

Eric J. Benner, Chief Rules, Inspections and Operations Branch Division of Spent Fuel Storage and Transportation Office of Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards cc: Kristopher Cummings, NEI - Selected NRC Staff Edits of NEI 12-04, Guidelines for 10 CFR 72.48 Implementation, Revision 0 (Marked-up copy) - Selected NRC Staff Edits of NEI 12-04, Guidelines for 10 CFR 72.48 Implementation, Revision 0 (Clean copy)

ADAMS Package: ML13260A029/Letter: ML13260A030/Enclosure 1: ML13260A056 Enclosure 2: ML13260A064 OFC SFST/PM SFST/LA OGC SFST/D SFST/RIOB/BC AHHsia for JWoodfield for NAME RWharton WWheatley via e-mail JHull NLO via e-mail MLombard EBenner DATE 08/23 /13 08/ 26 /13 09 / 10 /13 09/20 /13 09 /26 /13 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY