ML20217P031

Informs That Copy of Encl Frn,Amending 10CFR72 Regulations for ISFSI & Mrs,Has Been Sent to Ofc of Fr for Publication

ML20217P031
Person / Time
Issue date:	03/24/1998
From:	Rathbun D NRC OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL AFFAIRS (OCA)
To:	Inhofe J, Schaefer D HOUSE OF REP., ENERGY & COMMERCE, SENATE, ENVIRONMENT & PUBLIC WORKS
References
CCS, NUDOCS 9804090292
Download: ML20217P031 (2)

Text

bM

. p~ s\

p UNITED STATES g

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

', , WASHWGToN, D.C. 80000 4 001

+,,,,, March 24, 1998 i

The Honorable Dan Schaefer, Chairman Subcommittee on Energy and Power i Committee on Commerce United States Ho.se of Representatives Washington, DC 20515  ;

Dear Mr. Chairman:

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has sent to the Office of the Federal Register. for  !

publication, the enclosed proposed rule to amend its 10 CFR Part 72 regulations for independent Spent Fuel Storage installations (ISFL is), and the Monitored Retrievable Storage

!nstallation (MRS).

This proresed rule: (1) amends design basis acculent dose limits in 10 CFR 72.106(b) to I conform to the dose calculabonal methodology currently used in 10 CFR Part 20 and (2) makes j a minor change to 10 CFR 72.104(a) so that it would match the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) regulabons in 40 CFR ig1.03(a). l This action is needed to make Part 72 limits for design basis accidents consistent with Part 20 dose calculational methodology, and to afford Part 72 licensees the flexibility provided by i Part 20 dose methodology when performing design basis accident analyses.

' The Commission is issuing the proposed rule for public comments.  !

l Sincerely, l l

Dennis K. Rathbun, Director Office of Congressional Affairs l

Enclosure:

Federal Register Notice cc: Representative Ralph Hall 9004090292 900324 PDR ORG NPCC { (,

meeg g UNITE 3 STATES y

j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 30666 0001

.r March 24, 1998 The Honorable James M. Inhofe, Chairman Subcommittee on Clean Air, Wetlands, Private Property and Nuclear Safety Committee on Environment and Public Works United States Senate Washington, DC 20510

Dear Mr. Chairman:

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has sent to the Office of the Federal Reaister. for publication, the enclosed proposed rule to amend its 10 CFR Part 72 regulations for independent Spent Fuel Storage Installations (ISFSis), and the Monitored Retrievable Storage installation (MRS).

This proposed rule: (1) amends design basis accident dose limits in 10 CFR 72.106(b) to conform to the dose calculational methodology currently used in 10 CFR Part 20 and (2) makes a minor change to 10 CFR 72.104(a) so that it would match the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) regulations in 40 CFR 191.03(a).

This action is needed to make Part 72 limits for design basis accidents consistent with Part 20 dose calculational methodology, and to afford Part 72 licensees the flexibility provided by Part 20 dose methodology when performing design basis accident analyses.

The Commission is issuing the proposed rule for public comments.

i Sincerely, M i e Dennis K. Rathbun, Director Office of Congressional Affairs

Enclosure:

Federal Register Notice l l

cc: Senator Bob Graham 1

l 1

l

_ ___ _ _ _ n .- --

r-l j[ '.

J

[75g0-01-P] .

, NUCLEAR REGULMORY COMMISSION l-10 CFR Part 72 l

i RIN: 3150-AF84

)

Minor Revision of Design Basis Accident Dose Limits for Independent Spent Fuel Storage and MonitorM Retrievable t

Storage installations AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

, ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) proposes to amend its regulations -

n goveming the dose limits and the dose calculational methodology used in design basis accident analyses for Independent Spent Fuel Storage installations (ISFSI) and Monitored Retriewable 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 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 j

' limits for design basis accidents at ISFSI and MRS installations consistent with dose -

methodology specified in the regulations, and to afford licensees the flexibility pmvided by dose  ;

1 methodology when performing design basis accident analyses.

i

! DATES: The comment period expires (45 days after date of publication in the Federal 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.

1 I

W o e s crs' W gy 1

l.

4 .

i 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 am 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 Materia:

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

l 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

l

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

The ICRP-2 methodology was subsequently revised in ICRP Publication Number 26 (ICRP-26, 1977), and was incorporated into 10 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 fisk.

l Under the Part 20 calculational methodology, deep-dose equivalent (H ), which applies to l

the extemal whole-body exposure, is defined at 10 CFR 20.1003 as the dose equivalent at a l

tissue depth of 1 cm (1000 mg/cm2 ). The committed dose equivalent (CDE) (Hrx) 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 50-year period folinwing the intake. The committed etrective dose equivalent (CEDE) (Hg3) 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 i

are irradiated and the committed dose equivalent to these organs or tissues (He,w = Ew1Hr,w).

I The total effective dose equivalent (TEDE) is the sum of the deep-dose equivalent (for extemal expor_re) and the committed effective dose equivalent (for intamal exposures).

' The ICRP-26 methodology was not incorporated into Part 72 at the time Part 20 was revised. Part 72 contains two regulations that specify dose limits: $ 72.104, which sets dose ,

I 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 10 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  !

, I i

L

,,y_ .

. -' e ,

J Discussion -

h At present,6 72.106(b), Controlled area of an ISFSI or MRS provides:

L (b) Any individual located on or beyond the neatest boundary of the controlled 6

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 l

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 rom) 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 individus' 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 _.

I equivalent of 0.5 Sv (50 rem). The use of separate dose limits for the eye, skin, and extremities I 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 l l

. any accidental radiation exposure.

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

This action would also provide Part 72 licensees flexibility when performing design basis accident l

' 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 9

t 1

L l

,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 i

Agency's regulation at 40 CFR 191.03(a) wnich 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 en6 cal ogen; whereas, $ 72.104(a) phrases the standard in terms of dose limits to the whole l

l body and any osan. 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 osan. The critical organ (listed in Table 1 of ICRP-2) associated with an intake of radioactive material is considered to be that organ of l

the body whose damage by the radiation results in the greatest damage to the body.

i r

i

(:

i 5

\

Environmentalimpact: Categorical Exclusion j i

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 l

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 OMB control number, the NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, the information collection.

1 i

Regulatory Analysis 1

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

1. The No Action Altemative. This attemative is not acceptable to the NRC for t,he  ;

i fo!:owing reasons. Section 72.106(b) would continue to be inconsistent with Part 20. Part 72 L 6 l

l I

licensees would demonstrate compliance with the dose limits in Part 20 using the 1977 dose l . 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 19.59 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 altemative was not pursued. I

2. Amendments of 10 CFR Part 72, in this option, the NRC staff considered preparing a l

! proposed rule to amend the dose limiting design objective in 6 72.106(b) to 5 sem TEDE. This is consistent with the intent of the existing 6 72.106(b) and updates the dose calculational methodology to that used for demonstration of compliance with Part 20. Updating the dose l

calculational methodology also would increase the organ dose limit, CDE, from 5 rem to 50 rem; l

allow for the use of risk-based weighting factors for each organ or tissue to determine the 50 year CEDE; and provide licensess with additional flexibility in conducting and submitting design basis t

L accident analyses to demonstrate compliance with the requirements in $ 72.106(b). ,

! 1 in addition to the increased flexibility provided, licensees would no longer need to comply i  !

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 ISFSis and MRS installations would use the  !

l same dose calculational methodology as design basis accident analyses for a geologic repository l

operations area (10 CFR 60.136(b)). This altemative was chosen by the NRC.

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

y

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

• , . v Regulatory Flexibility Certification As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, S U.S.C. 605(b), the Commission certifies that this rule, if adopted, 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 5 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 proposed rule, if adopted, would not impose any additional obligations on entities that .

may fall within the definition of "small entitics" 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).

4 l

l e

e r 8

{

l

l l

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 backfits 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 l 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.

i New applicants and license renewal applications would be able to take' advantage c,t wme additional flexibility in the dose calculations that is afforded by the rule.

Agreement State implementation issues l

Under the " Policy Statement on Adequacy and Compatibility of Agreement State Programs" approved by the Commission on June 30, igg 7 (62 FR 46517), this rule is classified i

l as compatibility Catagory "NRC." This regulation addresses areas of exclusive NRC authority.

l' However, a State may adopt these provisions for the purposes of clarity and communication, as i

- long as the State does not adopt regulations or program elements that would cause the State to I' '

regulate this area.

t l-1 l

i e

g i

t -

l l:i 1' , , .

4

)

• List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 72 4

Criminal penalties, Manpower training programs, Nuclear materials,' Occupational safety and heath, 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 I

of 1954, as amended; the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended; and 5 U.S.C. 553; the Commission is proposing to adopt the following amendments to 10 CFR Part 72.

l' l . PART 72 - LICENSING REQUIREMENTS FOR THE INDEPENDENT STORAGE l

. OF SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL AND HIGH-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE r

l l

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 Glat. 929, 70, 932, 933, 934, 935, 948, 953, 954, 955, as amended, sec. 234, 83 Stat. 444, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2071, 2073, 2077, 2092, 2093, 2095, 2099, 2111, 2201, 2232, 2233, 2234, 2253,2237,2238,2282); 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.1330-755 (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

!:. 1 1

l

. .. ~

l, sec.189,68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2239); sec.134, Pub. L.97-425,9F Stat. 2230 (42 U.S.C.

i - 10154). Section 72.96(d) also issued under sec.145(g), Pub. L.100-203,101 Stat.1330-235 l

l (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. 2202,2?03,2204,2222,2224 (42 U.S. *.10*01,10137(a),10161(h)).

l l Subparts K and L are also issu'ed under sec.133,98 Stat. 2230 (42 L' S.C.10153) and sec.

1 218(a). 96 Stat. 2252 (42 U.S.C.10198).

l

$ 72.104 [ Amended]

I

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

8 72.104 Criteria for radioactive materials in effluents and direct radiriion from an ISFSI or MRS.

~

(a) During normal operations and anticipated occurrences, the annual dose equivalent fc

( any real individual who is located beyond the controlled area must not exceed 25 mrem to the  ;

i l whole body,75 mrem to the thyroid and 25 mrem to any other critical organ as a result of exposure to:

l

~q.

3. In $ 72.106, paragraph ' , ; nvised to read as follows: )L ),

8 72.106 Controlled area of an ISFSI or MRS. V

. . . . . DW q D5$

l (b) Any individuallocated on or beyond the nearest boundary of the controlled aread.;" "

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 comm!itM dose equivalent to any individual organ or tissue (other than the lens of the eye) of 0.5 Sv (50 rem).

11 1

• - ~

1 . .

\ ..

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

l spent fuel or high-level radioactive waste handling and storage facilities to the nearest bounda s

not yM ',

of the controlled area at least 100 meters.

3 li3 l'!&

>^ I l

Dated at Rockvilli, Maryland, this 3 day of $/ g 1998.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

1 L. Joseph C tali,an, Executive DWetor for Operations.

l l

i I

i .

12

l . '

CONGRESSIOMAL CORRESPONDENG SYSTEM

\'

DOCUMEllT PREPARATION OIECRliET This cheek list is to be submitted with each document (or gMy of Qs/As) sineforprocessing.

into the CCS. .

1. BRIEFDESCRIPTION OFDOCUMENT(S) l

• O kl

2. TYPE OFDOCUMENT K CORRESPONDENG _ REARINGS (Qs/As) l 3. DOCUMENT CONTROL SENSITIVE (NRC ONLY) X

NON-SENSD7VE t

l 4. CONGkESSIONAL COMMITTEE AND SUBCOMMITIEE (ifapplicable)

) Congressional Committee i

Subcommittee

5. SUBIECT CODES l (A)

(B) l (C)

I

6. SOURG OFDOCUMENTS (A) 5520 (DOCUMENT NAME )

(B) SC4N (C) ATTAWMENTS i (D) OTHER

7. SYSTEff fOGDATES (A) 11%IfB DATA OC4 SENTDOCUMENT TO CCS (B) DATE CCS REGIVED D0CUMENT (C) DATE RETURNED TO OC4 FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (D) DATERESUBMITIED BYOC4 TO CCS (E) DATE ENTERED INTO CCS BY_

(F) DATE OC4 NOTIFIED THATDOCUMENTISIN CCS r

COMMENIS: , . .. n e..,Li*O ,

RELEASE TO PDR I

h

)