ML23156A398

PR-072 - 58FR48004 - Notification of Events at Independent Spent Fuel Retrievable Storage Installation

ML23156A398
Person / Time
Issue date:	09/14/1993
From:	Taylor J NRC/EDO
To:
References
PR-072, 58FR48004
Download: ML23156A398 (1)

Text

ADAMS Template: SECY-067 DOCUMENT DATE: 09/14/1993 TITLE: PR-072 - 58FR48004 - NOTIFICATION OF EVENTS AT INDEPENDENT SPENT FUEL RETRIEVABLE STORAGE INSTALLATION CASE

REFERENCE:

PR-072 58FR48004 KEYWORD: RULEMAKING COMMENTS Document Sensitivity: Non-sensitive - SUNSI Review Complete

STATUS OF RULEMAXING PROPOSED RULB: PR-072 OPEN ITEK (Y/N) N RULB HAMB: NOTIFICATION OF EVENTS AT INDEPENDENT SPENT FUEL STORAGE INSTALLATIONS AND THE MONITORED RETRIEVABLE STORAGE INSTALLATION PROPOSED RULB FED REG CITE: 58FR48004 PROPOSED RULB PUBLICATION DATE: 09/14/93 NUMBER OF COMMENTS: 7 ORIGINAL DATB FOR COMMENTS: 11/29/93 EXTENSJ:ON DATE: I I FINAL RULB FED. REG. CITE: 59FR64283 FJ:NAL RULB PUBLICATION DATE: 12/14/94 NOTES ON PROPOSED AND FINAL RULES SIGNED BY THE EDO. FILE LOCATED ON Pl.

TATUS F RULB TO FJ:ND THB STAFF CONTACT OR VJ:EW THB RULEMAXJ:NG HJ:STORY PRESS PAGE DOWN KEY HISTORY OF THE RULE PART AFFECTED: PR-072 RULB TJ:TLB: NOTIFICATION OF EVENTS AT J:NDEPENDENT SPENT FUEL STORAGE INSTALLATIONS AND THE MONITORED RETRIEVABLE STORAGE INSTALLATION ROPOSED RULE PROPOSED RULE DATE PROPOSED RULE SECY PAPER: SRM DATE: I I SIGNED BY SECRETARY: 08/27/93 FINAL RULE FINAL RULE DATE FINAL RULE SECY PAPER: SRM DATE: I I SIGNED BY SECRETARY: 11/30/94 STAFF CONTACTS ON THE RULE CONTACT1: NAIEK S. TANIOUS MAIL STOP: T-9F-33 PHONE: 492-3878 CONTACT2: MAIL STOP: PHONE:

DOCKET NO. PR-072 (58FR48004)

In the Matter of NOTIFICATION OF EVENTS AT INDEPENDENT SPENT FUEL STORAGE INSTALLATIONS AND THE MONITORED RETRIEVABLE STORAGE INSTALLATION DATE DATE OF TITLE OR DOCKETED DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENT 09/15/93 11/16/93 08/27/93 11/08/93 FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE - PROPOSED RULE COMMENT OF STATE OF ILLINOIS DEPT NUCLEAR SAFETY (THOMAS W. ORTCIGER) ( 1) 11/22/93 11/20/93 COMMENT OF FAWN SHILLINGHAW ( 2) 11/29/93 11/24/93 COMMENT OF COMMONWEALTH EDISON (WILLIAM NAUGHTON) ( 3) 11/29/93 11/26/93 COMMENT OF ENTERGY OPERATIONS, INC.

(JERRY YELVERTON) ( 4) 11/30/93 11/29/93 COMMENT OF YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC CO.

(D.W. EDWARDS, DIRECTOR) ( 5)

- 12/03/93 12/09/93 12/15/94 11/30/93 11/23/93 11/30/94 COMMENT OF NUMARC (THOMAS E. TIPTON, VP l DIRECTOR) (

COMMENT OF DEPT OF HEALTH, ARKANSAS (GRETA J. DICUS, DIRECTOR) ( 7)

FINAL RULE PUBLISHED ON 12/14/94 AT 59 FR 64283.

6)

• 94 ~,., 15 P .? : 7 *94 rrr: 15 r" *1 7 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR PART 72 RIN 3150-AE37 Not;f;cat;on of Events AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Comm;ss;on.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY

The Nuclear Regulatory Convniss;on (NRC) is amending ;ts regulations to revise licensee reporting requirements regarding the notification of events related to rad;at;on safety at Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installat;ons (ISFSis) and a Monitored Retrievable Storage Installation (MRS). This action will ensure that significant occurrences at these licensed facilities are promptly reported to NRC so that the Commission can evaluate whether the licensee has taken appropriate actions to protect the public health and safety and whether prompt NRC action is necessary to address generic safety concerns.

EFFECTIVE DATE: (Thirty days after publication in the Federal Register).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Naiem S. Tanious, Off;ce of Nuclear Regulatory Research, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, 20555. Telephone (301) 415-6103 .

f u)r. p--' ,~-lrt/Cf If

~ 5o/ F'fl 6J./213

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On August 16, 1991, (56 FR 40757), the NRC amended its regulations in Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), Parts 20, 30, 40, and 70 to better describe those events that must be reported to the NRC because they pose a potential hazard to public health and safety or the environment and should be evaluated by NRC to determine whether further NRC action is necessary. These new reporting requirements covered the following areas:

Inability to control licensed material, unplanned contamination events, failure of safety equipment, personal injury events, and fires and explosions.

Public comments received when the amendments were proposed suggested that Part 72 also be amended to require notification of events at an ISFSI or MRS. The NRC responded that it would consider the suggestion and initiate rulemaking to amend Part 72, if appropriate. In considering the suggestion, the NRC took account of the fact that, except for criticality, Part 72 itself contains no generally applicable reporting requirements for the types of events covered by the recent amendments to Parts 30, 40, and 70.

Furthermore, to date among the seven existing Part 72 specific license ISFSis, the reporting requirements have been imposed by license condition on a case-by-case basis and are not consistent. Therefore, the NRC decided that it 1s*

desirable to proceed with amending Part 72.

On September 14, 1993 (58 FR 48004), the NRC published the notice of proposed rulernaking that would add new reporting requirements to Part 72. The proposed reporting requirements in§ 72.75 were similar to the reporting 2

requirements in the amendments to Parts 30, 40, and 70, but with some changes appropriate to ISFSis and the MRS. These changes dealt with defects in storage systems, unplanned medical treatments involving radioactive contamination, and fires and explosions. The public conment period expired November 29, 1993.

Public Comments on the Proposed Rule The NRC received letters from seven conrnenters: one letter from an organization that represents the nuclear power industry, one from a private citizen, two from States, and three from electric utilities. All of the conunenters supported the goal of establishing uniform reporting requirements; however, most co1T1J1enters identified specific provisions that they believed should be revised. Some co111nenters supported the proposed requirements because they are generally consistent with existing Part 50 requirements. The following is a summary of the conments and NRC's responses.

The 4-hour threshold for immediate reporting.

Some colllllenters stated that the 4-hour threshold for immediate reports was too long. They were concerned that events described in the proposed rule may require actions by local authorities to protect persons offsite.

Therefore, the comrnenters believed that immediate reports should be made within minutes, not hours.

The NRC agrees that emergencies should be reported inrnediately. Even though already addressed in§ 72.32, § 72.75 has been clarified to explicitly 3

specify that all emergencies, as classified by the licensee's emergency plan or by license condition, must be reported to the NRC Operations Center after notification to State and local authorities. Additionally, this notification must be made within one hour of the emergency declaration by the licensee.

The remaining reporting requirements in§ 72.75 are for events which are significant, but not emergencies; therefore, reporting to the NRC within one hour is not necessary. The NRC believes that for these non-emergency type events a 4-hour reporting period is appropriate.

Irrmediate notification of off-site agencies.

In one co11111enter's view, appropriate off-site agencies should be notified immediately, i.e., within 15 minutes, of any classifiable accident, and that timely notification is essential to ensure that emergency response actions, when required, are not unduly or unnecessarily delayed.

Section 72.75 has been clarified to specify that emergency events be promptly reported to off-site agencies as specified in the licensee's emergency plan. The NRC agrees that, in the event of an emergency, NRC and State and local agencies should be notified in less time than 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br />. In particular, if an event is significant enough to be an emergency, then Part 72 emergency planning requirements would govern, including notification of the NRC Operations Center and off-site State and Federal agencies as soon as practical and, in any event, in less than 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br />.

In addition to achieving more consistency in reporting events among ISFSI licensees, two objectives of this rulemaking remain the same as those already achieved by the earlier notification of events rulemaking for 4

Parts 30, 40, and 70, that is, to assure that all significant events are reported, and that the NRC and the industry have knowledge of and feedback from operating experience (56 FR 40757; August 16, 1991,_general cement No. 3).

Thirty-day time limit for written reports.

One commenter stated that the 30-day time limit for written followup reports was too long. The commenter stated that the public has a right to know of events as soon as possible and that written reports should be submitted within one week so they can be placed in the public document room.

The NRC notes that the telephone notifications made to the Operations Center are formalized and distributed to the public document room and the NRC's computer bulletin board within approximately one working day. However, for a written followup investigation, the 30-day time limit is standard. For these types of events, the licensee may need to take measurements, collect samples, decontaminate and clean up, assemble the facts, and write the report.

Also, a 30-day period has been found to be adequate for similar requirements-in Parts 20, 30,. 40, 50, and 70. Therefore, the 30-day time limit is a balance of the public's need to know as soon as possible and the licensee's need to have an adequate amount of time to complete the previously described tasks in order to provide a meaningful report.

5

Changing the words "a medical facility" to "an offsite medical facility".

One commenter recommended changing the words, "a medical facility to 0

0 an offsite medical facility" in§ 72.75(a)(S). With this change

§ 72.75(a)(S) would read: *An event that requires unplanned medical treatment at an offsite medical facility of an individual with radioactive contamination on the individual's clothing or body which could cause further contamination."

The conmenter suggested that this word change would make§ 72.75(a)(5) consistent with§ 50.72(b)(2){v).

The NRC agrees with the conmenter and the change has been made in the final rule. The word "offsite* was not used in the earlier reporting requirements that were added to Parts 30, 40, and 70 because some of these licensees are hospitals. It is clear that a hospital would not be a Part 72 specific license ISFSI.

Mechanism for notification of off-site authorities.

One cementer asked whether there is a mechanism in place to ensure that off-site authorities will be notified in a timely manner.

Yes. If the event is an emergency, the licensee emergency plans are such a mechanism. If the event is not an emergency, this rule provides a mechanism to ensure timely notification.

6

Revising§ 72.216 to include§ 72.74 events.

One co111Renter suggested that if 10 CFR 72.216 is to be revised to require compliance with the new reporting requirements of§ 72.75, it would be logical to also revise it to include 10 CFR 72.74 concerning criticality reporting requirements.

The NRc* agrees with the convnent and the final rule has been revised such that§ 72.216 now requires reporting of those events described in

§ 72.74.

Reporting events under§ 50.72 instead of§ 72.75.

One commenter suggested that general licensees located at a reactor site with a Part 50 operating license should be required to report events in accordance with§ 50.72, instead of the new§ 72.75. According to the co1T111enter, this change would promote uniformity in reporting requirements without creating an additional burden on general licensees.

The NRC disagrees. Such general licensees under Part 72 are already required to comply with§ 50.72, which covers predominantly reactor related events and conditions but not spent fuel and high-level waste (HLW). Thus, it 1s necessary for general licensees to comply with§ 72.75, which only covers events and conditions related to spent fuel and HLW.

7

Uniformity of requirements of 10 CFR 72.75 and 10 CFR 50.72.

One coD1nenter expressed the concern that the requirements of§ 72.75 and§ 50.72 are not uniform. The conmenter pointed out that the proposed rule in§§ 72.75(a)(l) and (a)(4) requires reporting within 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br />, whereas similar requirements in§§ 50.72(b)(l)(i)(B), and (b)(l)(vi) require reporting of the same events within 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br />.

Reporting of similar events or conditions are covered in both§ 50.72 e and§ 72.75, but the potential consequences are not the same. For example, events and conditions covered by§ 50.72 {b){l) relate to nuclear power plants whereas events and conditions covered by§ 72.75 relate to spent fuel or*HLW.

The consequences of certain events at nuclear power reactors have the potential to be somewhat more significant than the consequences of similar events involving spent fuel or HLW at ISFSis. Therefore, the reporting time has been linked to the potential consequences of the event and uniformity is not necessary. It should be noted, however, that the immediate notification requirements for emergency event reporting have not been changed. This has been clarified in§ 72.75.

Reporting safety equipment failures.

Some convnenters requested that the proposed reporting requirement in

§ 72.75(b)(2) for safety equipment failures be revised to be consistent with the language in§ 50.72{b){2)(iii). The commenters stated that the proposed reporting requirement seemed significantly more restrictive than§ 50.72.

8

The NRC disagrees. The requirements in§ 50.72(b)(2)(iii) apply to events or conditions of the nuclear power plant and require reporting within four hours whereas§ 72.75 (b)(2) applies to events or conditions of the spent fuel or HLW and requires reporting within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />.

Having considered all conments received and other input, the NRC has detennined that the following final rule should be promulgated.

Environmental Impact: Categorical Exclusion The NRC has detennined that this final rule is the type of action described in the categorical exclusion of 10 CFR 51.22(c)(3)(iii). Therefore, neither an environmental impact statement nor an environmental assessment has been prepared for this regulation.

Paperwork Reduction Act Statement This final rule amends information collection requirements that are subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

These requirements were approved by the Office of Management and Budget, approval number 3150-0132.

The public reporting burden for this collection of infonnation is estimated to average 8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br /> per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comnents regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of infonnation, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to the 9

Information and Records Management Branch (T-6 F33), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, 20555; and to the Desk Officer, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, NEOB-10202 (3150-0132), Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC, 20503.

Regulatory Analysis The Corrmission has prepared a regulatory analysis for this final rule.

- The analysis examines the costs and benefits of the alternatives considered by the Commission. The Commission requested public conrnents on the draft regulatory analysis, but no comments were received. No changes to the draft regulatory analysis were therefore considered to be necessary. As a result, the draft regulatory analysis is adopted as the final regulatory analysis without change. The regulatory analysis is available for inspection in the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street NW. (Lower Level), Washington, DC.

Regulatory Flexibility Certification The NRC has prepared an analysis of the impact of this final rule on small entities. The analysis indicates that the final rule is expected to have no significant economic impact on Part 72 licensees, because the estimated cost to industry of reporting postulated events would be in the range of$ 0 - 2112 annually. Moreover, none of the current Part 72 licensees are considered small entities. In any case, no report would be required of licensees unless there is an incident involving spent fuel or HLW that meets the criteria specified in these amendments. Hence, the impact on Part 72 10

licensees should be minimal. The analysis is available for inspection in the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street NW (Lower Level), Washington, DC.

Backfit Analysis The NRC has determined that the backfit rule 10 CFR 50.109, does not apply to this final rule because these amendments do not involve any provisions which would impose backfits as defined in§ 50.109(a)(l). Also, the NRC has determined that backfititng requirements in§ 72.62 do not apply to this proposed rule bacause the proposed event reporting requirements are not procedures required to operate an ISFSI or MRS. Therefore, a backfit analysis is not required.

Criminal penalties For purposes of Section 223 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, relating to willful violations of requirements notice is hereby given that these amendments are being adopted and promulgated pursuant to Sections 161b, 16li, or 1610 of the Act.

List of Subjects 10 CFR Part 72 Manpower training programs, Nuclear materials, Occupational safety and health, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Spent fuel.

11

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; the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended; and 5 U.S.C.

553, the Conwnission is proposing to adopt the following amendments to 10 CFR Part 72.

PART 72--LICENSING REQUIREMENTS FOR THE INDEPENDENT STORAGE OF SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL ANO HIGH-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE

1. The authority citation for Part 72 is revised to read as follows:

AUTHORITY: Secs. 51, 53, 57, 62, 63, 65, 69, 81, 161, 182, 183, 184, 186, 187, 189, 68 Stat. 929, 930, 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, 2236, 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 (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. 1330-235 (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 sec 189, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2239); sec. 134, Pub. L.97-425, 96 Stat. 2230 (42 U.S.C. 10154). Section 72.96(d) also issued under sec. 145 (g), Pub. L. 100-203, 101 Stat. 1330-235 (42 U.S.C.

12

10165(g); Subpart J also issued under secs. 2(2), 2(15), 2(19), 117(a),

14l{h), Pub. L.97-425, 96 Stat. 2202, 2203, 2204, 2222, 2224 (42 U.S.C.

10101, 10137{a), 1016l{h)). Subparts Kand Lare also issued under sec. 133, 98 Stat. 2230 {42 U.S.C. 10153) and sec. 218(a), 96 Stat. 2252 (42 U.S.C.

10198).

2. A new§ 72.75 under Subpart D - *Records, Reports, Inspections, and Enforcement" - is added to read as follows:

§ 72.75 Reporting requirements for specific events and conditions.

{a) Emergency notifications - Each licensee shall notify the NRC Operations Center upon the declaration of an emergency as specified in the licensee's approved emergency plan addressed in§ 72.32 of this part. The licensee shall notify the NRC irm1ediately after notification of the appropriate State or local agencies, but not later than one hour after the time the licensee declares an emergency.

{b) Non-emergency notifications: Four-hour reports. Each licensee shall notify the- NRc-as soon as possible but not later than 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> after the discovery of any of the following events or conditions involving spent fuel or HLW:

{l) An event that prevents irm1ediate actions necessary to avoid exposures to radiation or radioactive materials that could exceed regulatory limits, or releases of radioactive materials that could exceed regulatory limits {e.g., events such as fires, explosions, and toxic gas releases).

(2) A defect in any spent fuel storage structure, system, or component which is important to safety.

13

(3) A significant reduction in the effectiveness of any spent fuel storage confinement system during use.

(4) An action taken in an emergency that departs from a condition or a technical specification contained in a license or certificate of compliance issued under this part when the action is immediately needed to protect the public health and safety and no action consistent with license or certificate of compliance conditions or technical specifications that can provide adequate or equivalent protection is i1T111ediately apparent.

(5) An event that requires unplanned medical treatment at an offsite medical facility of an individual with radioactive contamination on the individual's clothing or body which could cause further radioactive contamination.

(6) An unplanned fire or explosion damaging any spent fuel or HLW, or any device, container, or equipment containing spent fuel or HLW when the damage affects the integrity of the material or its container.

(c) Non-emergency notifications: Twenty-four hour reports. Each licensee shall notify the NRC within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> after the discovery of any of the following events involving spent fuel or HLW:

(1) Any unplanned contamination event that requires access to the contaminated area by workers or the public to be restricted for more than 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> by imposing additional radiological controls or by prohibiting entry into the area.

(2) An event in which safety equipment is disabled or fails to function as designed when:

(i) The equipment is required by regulation, license condition, or certificate of compliance to be available and operable to prevent releases 14

that could exceed regulatory limits, to prevent exposures to radiation or radioactive materials that could exceed regulatory limits, or to mitigate the consequences of an accident; and (ii) No redundant equipment was available and operable to perform the required safety function.

(d) Preparation and submission of reports. Reports made by licensees in response to the requirements of this section must be made as follows:

(1) Licensees shall make reports required by paragraphs (a), (b), or

• (c) of this section by telephone to the NRC Operations Center. 1 To the extent that the information is available at the time of notification, the information provided in these reports must include:

(i) The caller's name and call back telephone number; (ii) A description of the event, including date and time; (iii) The exact location of the event; (iv) The quantities, and chemical and physical forms of the spent fuel or HLW involved; and (v) Any personnel radiation exposure data.

(2) Written report. Each licensee who makes an initial report required by paragraph (a) or (b) of this section shall submit a written followup report within 30 days of the initial report. Written reports prepared pursuant to other regulations may be submitted to fulfill this requirement if the reports contain all of the necessary information and the appropriate distribution is made. These written reports must be sent to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Co1m1ission, Document Control Desk, Washington, DC, 20555, with a copy to the 1

The commercial telephone number for the NRC Operations Center is (301) 816-5100.

15

appropriate NRC Regional Office listed in Appendix D of 10 CFR Part 20. These reports must include the following:

(1) A description of the event, including the probable cause and the manufacturer and model number (if applicable) of any equipment that failed or malfunctioned; (ii) The exact location of the event; (111) The quantities, and chemical and physical forms of the spent fuel or HLW involved;

• (iv) Date and time of the event; (v) Corrective actions taken or planned and the results of any evaluations or assessments; and (vi) The extent of exposure of individuals to radiation or to radioactive materials without identification of individuals by name.

3. Section 72.216 under Subpart K - "Reports" - is amended by adding new paragraph (c) to read as follows:

§ 72.216 Reports.

16

{c) The general licensee shall make initial and written reports in accordance with§§ 72.74 and 72.75, except for the events or conditions specified by§§ 72.75(a)(2) and (3) for which the initial reports will be made under paragraph (a) of this section.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 30 dday of k<<J~ , 1994.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Comission.

for Operations.

17

(i) 4815 WEST MARKHAM STREET

• LITTLE ROCK, ARl<lrn/£A 205-;3!!67 TELEPHONE AC 501 661-2000 - ;JJ - - ':} p 5 :24 November 23, 1993 Naiem Tanious Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research U . S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

- Washington, D.C. 20555 RE: Pt*oposed Rule: Notification of Events at Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installations and the Monitored Retrievable Storage Installation.

Dear Mr. Tanious,

The proposed rule seeks to provide consistency in reporting requirements for spent fuel storage sites similar to the reporting requirements required in Part 30, 40 &

70. J. support the basic intent of the regulatory and believe the proposed rule will meet the intent.

On page 48005 of Vol. 58, # 176 of the Federal Register, four questions are posed with a request for comment on these questions. For the most part they seem more appropriate for response by others, so no specific responses to the questions are made at this time by this Agency.

I do have a general comment and a question.

A mechanism must be in place to ensure that off-site authorities will be notified in a timely manner of an event with off-site or potential off-site consequences. I am assuming that this wili be addressed via technical specifications in license conditions. Is this assumption correct?

Thank you for the ofpm:tunity to comment on this proposed rule. If you have any questions, please cal me at 501-661-2301.

Sincerely, Greta J. Dicus, Director Di vi Rion of Radiation Control and Emergency Management GtlD:lf G4l

,* * *, i *

~ .

December 7, 1993 NOTE TO: Emile Julian, Chief Docketing and Services Branch FROM: Naiem S. Tanious ~ ~ ,2-11*\~ 3 Regulation Development Branch/ORA/RES

SUBJECT:

COMMENT RECEIVED FROM THE ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH This note transmit to you the attached letter which I received from Greta J.

Dicus, Director, Division of Radiation Control and Emergency Management, Arkansas Department of Health. The letter contains the Department comments on the NRC proposed rule for 10 CFR 72 concerning notification of events at Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installations (58 FR 48004). Please arrange for docketing the letter. After docketing I appreciate receiving a copy.

cc: J. Telford

NUCLEAR MANAGEMENT AND RESOURCES COUNCIL 1776 Eye Street N.W.

• Suite 300

• Washington, DC 20006-3706 *93 (202) 872-1280 0((' - 3 PL :15 Thomas E. Tipton Vice President & Director Operations, Management and Support Services Division November 30, 1993 Mr. Samuel J. Chilk Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

- Washington, DC 20555 ATTENTION: Docketing and Service Branch

SUBJECT:

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Proposed Rule, "Notification of Events at Independent Spent Pool Storage Installations and the Monitored Retrievable Storage Installation 58 Fed.Reg. 48004, September 14, 1993 Request for Comments

Dear Mr. Chilk:

The Nuclear Management and Resources Council (NUMARC) 1 submits these comments on behalf of the nuclear power industry. We have reviewed the proposed rule to amend 10 CFR Part 72 in response to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) request for comments (58 Fed.Reg. 48004, September 14, 1993). The proposed rule would revise licensee reporting requirements regarding notification of events related to radiation safety at Independent Spent Fuel Storage (ISFSis) and Monitored Retrievable Storage Installations (MRS).

We support the NRC's approach to achieve appropriate timely event notification while avoiding conflicts with the existing prompt reporting requirements that apply to ISFSis located at commercial power reactor sites. As proposed, the rule will have very little impact at this time on Part 72 licensees since most of them are subject to event NUMARC is the organization of the nuclear power industry that is responsible for coordinating the combined efforts of all utilities licensed by the NRC to construct or operate nuclear power plants, and of other nuclear industry organizations, in all matters involving generic regulatory policy issues and on the regulatory aspects of generic operational and technical issues affecting the nuclear power industry. Every utility responsible for construction or operating a commercial nuclear power plant in the United States is a member of NUMARC. In addition, NUMARC's members include major architect/engineering firms and all of the major nuclear steam supply system vendors.

MAY 1 o 1994 Acknowledged by card ..........,,..,11 -

U.S. NUCLE'\H ~E:.GU:.,\ 1 0RY COMMISSION DO(,:~c-1 I\ '1 & SERVICE SECTION 0,-, I,, OF ThE SECRETARY

\ OF THc: cc;,u1SSiON Postma:., L, - , -- _ I L_ I If o/3___

Co~;r!: r * * /~ - - - - -

AdcJ'I COi,,,C, -

Special D;;.,.~ 1_ i2;1:YJ5,I Jl}[2g, tL

Mr. Samuel J. Chilk November 30, 1993 Page2 reporting under 10 CFR 50.72. At some future time when the existing Part 50 reactor operating license is terminated, the proposed rule will apply directly.

It is very desirable that the final Part 72 rule be reasonable and consistent with 10 CFR Part 50. 72. Our review has identified the following recommendations to further enhance the proposed rule in this regard. The basis for 24-hour notification of events in which safety equipment is disabled or fails to function as designed should be made consistent with § 50. 72. However, the proposed rule could be interpreted to indicate that

§ 72. 75(b)(2) is more restrictive. In § 50. 72, generally only those situations of safety equipment inoperability that go beyond license conditions require notification ofNRC.

Adherence to license conditions provides assurance to the NRC that when the function of required safety equipment is lost, the licensee has taken appropriate compensatory action.

Notification ofNRC is not also required to provide this assurance. The statement of considerations "Safety Equipment Related Events," should be consistent with

§ 72.75(b)(2).

The proposed § 72. 75(a)(5) would require a notification to the NRC in the case of "an event that requires unplanned medical treatment at a medical facility of an individual with radioactive contamination on the individual's clothing or body which could cause further radioactive contamination." We recommend changing the words, "a medical facility" to "an offsite medical facility." This change is consistent with 10 CFR 50.72(b)(2)(v). The proposed rule should not be more restrictive than the existing reporting requirements of 10 CFR Part 50 unless it is technically justifiable. No justification is provided in the Federal Register notice to substantiate the need to change the approach established in§ 50.72(b)(2)(v).

NRC requested specific input regarding number of reports expected. The limited amount of operating experience at this time precludes an accurate response to this request. When experience is gained, this matter may deserve to be revisited.

If there are any questions regarding the comments provided in this letter, please contact Alan Nelson, John Schmitt or me. We are available to meet with the NRC and discuss the issue further if desired.

Gf ~~ t:

omas E. Tipton TET/APN:plg

- Telephone (508) 779-6711 YANKEE ATOMIC EL,CTRIC COMPANY TWX 710-380-7619

\ .

I -

• *r

, I .\ \

Mr. Samuel J. Chilk - : *- -*-

--_: I**

Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555

Subject:

Yankee Atomic Electric Company Comments on the Proposed Rule:

"Notification of Events at Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installations and the Monitored Retrievable Storage Installation" (58FR48004)

Dear Mr. Chilk:

Yankee Atomic Electric Company (YAEC) appreciates the opportunity to comment on the subject proposed rule. YAEC is a New England utility which owns the Yankee plant in Rowe, Massachusetts and provides engineering and licensing services to other nuclear power plants in New England.

Yankee fully supports the comments filed by NUMARC on behalf of the industry regarding this matter. We believe that the basic intent of the NUMARC comment is to highlight the need for consistency of reporting standards between Part 72 and Part 50. Our specific comments to the subject proposed rule relate to the apparent dichotomy between the claims in the Discussion that the changes are based on existing requirements (e.g., 50.72(b)(l)(B)) and the proposed three conditions for reporting that do not refer to the governing Technical Specifications as a point of departure.

The proposed rule would amend NRC regulations to revise licensee reporting requirements regarding the notification of events related to radi ation safety at Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installations (ISFSI's) and a Monitored Retrievable Storage Installation (MRS). Creating one rule for both types of facilities may be a fundamental flaw. It would seem that the nature of the two facilities could be quite different. Though they both involve fuel storage, the relatively inactive ISFSI adjacent to a Part 50 faci lity might contrast sharply with a bustling MRS. On the basis of that comparative perception, the reporting rules could well be different.

C76\377 Acknowledged by cardN.MAY 1 O 1994L

' IX5.NUCLEAR REGUL;..TORY COMMISSION oor.i,-::1 i-.JG i:; S::RV'.Cc SECT10N Of"t-lGf OF THE SECF:E.:TARY OF THE COL.~.~!3~.;o*~

Postm~r:, o:-*-~ / 1 /~ q_/_o/_J_ __

Ccp>:- ~(,. , 1 _ __ / _ _ __

Add"! C;if,*v-~ ,,., '~-~ J ~' - - - - -

Special o;_,.: *ou -~., 12,;r; >JS. P¥2iL

-r 7 ,

Mr. Samuel J. Chilk November 29, 1993 Page 2 One proposed revision (72.75(b)(2)) requires a 24-hour report following discovery of an event in which safety equipment is disabled or fails to function as designed when:

1. the equipment is required by regulation or licensee condition to prevent releases or exposures exceeding regulatory limits. or to mitigate the consequences of an accident.

2. the equipment is required to be available and operable when it is disabled or fails: and

3. no redundant equipment is available and operable to perform the required safety function when the failure occurs.

One of the examples presented to clarify implementation of this requirement highlights our point. A 24-hour report is required upon. "Failure of monitoring equipment required by regulation or license condition to verify that safe criticality conditions exist while spent fuel bundles are being moved in a pool."

Based on the event example above, the rule appears to require a 24-hour report for a monitoring equipment failure even if the facility were operating in accordance within its Technical Specifications. It appears as though a report would be required when Technical Specification required equipment fails. regardless of the applicability of the associated Action Statement.

This seems significantly more restrictive than reporting required by 10 CFR 50.72. The reporting requirements in 10 CFR 50.72 do not require a report following any event or condition unless that event or condition alone would have prevented the fulfillment of the safety function of structures or systems that are needed to mitigate the consequences of an accident (10 CFR 50.72(b)(2)(iii)(D)).

For example, a Technical Specification Limiting Condition for Operation may require the spent fuel storage area radiation monitoring equipment to be operable when handling irradiated fuel. If the equipment becomes inoperable.

the Technical Specification Action Statement requires that fuel be placed in a safe condition and fuel handling operations be suspended until the monitor is returned to operable status. Adherence with the Technical Specification Action Statement would constitute compliance with the Limiting Condition for Operation. The proposed rule appears to impose an additional 24-hour notification following this event. It should not be necessary to report a condition requiring entry into an Action Statement to the NRC. Use of Action Statements to meet the Limiting Condition for Operations is anticipated and has been accepted by the staff, as adequate for public protection. The purpose of this structure for Technical Specifications is to constrain licensee actions when the bounds of the license are approached. Additional C76\377

Mr. Samuel J. Chilk November 29, 1993 Page 3 reporting because this type of restraint has been exercised seems inconsistent with NRC reporting philosophy represented by 10CFR 50.72 and 50.73.

The confusion created by the examples in the proposal interferes with making any sort of projection about the number of reports that may be filed yearly, as requested by the FR notice. If the reporting standard is set entirely consistent with those of Part 50, the number for an ISFSI would likely be very low single numbers.

Yankee appreciates the opportunity to comment on the subject proposed rule and urges that it be modified to establish a report i ng requirement consistent with the reporting requirements in 10 CFR 50.72.

Sincerely ,

r;l/c%MfLA D. W. Edwards Director, Industry Affairs DWE/dhm C76\377

-===- ENTERGY ...~ ~ ~ L. i.;

uS Nt L, Entergy Operations, Inc.

Route 3 Box 137G Russellville, AR 72801 Tel 501-964-8888 Jerry W. Yelverton eJ- (

• 93 NQ' 29 P3 :07 Vice President Operations ANO H. I November 26, 1993 0CAN119303 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Attention: Docketing and Service Branch

Subject:

Arkansas Nuclear One - Units 1 and 2 Docket Nos. 50-313 and 50-368 License Nos. DPR-51 and NPF-6 Comments On Proposed Rule: Notification Of Events At Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installations Gentlemen:

In response to your request for comments on the proposed rule for 10CFR72 concerning notification of events at independent spent fuel storage facilities and the monitored retrievable storage installation (58 FR 48004), the attached comments are forwarded for your consideration.

Very truly yours, Attachment

'MAY 1~ ~

Acknowledged by card ...--.,  :::

- .* . . * ;. .. *, sor,~i111SSIOl\i

• :- . . *r ~: .[CTION

( :, ;-;-.,t* ,_-,~ i :: .. (_f.,P.:.-1*,~.hY 0 F T,~;~ CC>i.\\*.;:.S!<)N

U.S. NRC November 26, 1993 0CANI 19303 Page 2 cc: U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Document Control Desk Mail Station Pl-137 Washington, DC 20555 Mr. James L. Milhoan Regional Administrator U . S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region IV 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 400 Arlington, TX 76011-8064 NRC Senior Resident Inspector Arkansas Nuclear One - ANO-1 & 2 Number 1, Nuclear Plant Road Russellville, AR 72801 Mr. Roby B. Bevan, Jr.

NRR Project Manager Region IV/ANO-I U . S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission NRR Mail Stop 13-H-3 One White Flint North 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852 Mr. Thomas W. Alexion NRR Project Manager, Region IV/ANO-2 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission NRR Mail Stop 13-H-3 One White Flint North 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852

Attachment to 0CAN119303 Page 1 of2 Comments on Proposed Rule

1. General licensees should not be required to use the new IOCFR72.75. Requiring general licensees to completely utilize I0CFRS0.72 by revising I0CFR72.216 to this effect would promote uniformity in reporting requirements between existing site-specific licensees and current and future users of a general license for an independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI} without creating additional burden for the general licensee. An ISFSI used by a general licensee must be located at a reactor site with a current Part 50 license per IOCFR72.210. This is similar to the reason given in the notice for exempting currently existing site-specific ISFSI licensees from use of the new IOCFR72.75 in order to use I0CFRS0.72 for reporting. Additionally, general licensees are currently required to partially utilize I0CFRS0.72 (I0CFR50.72(b)(2)(vii) only) per I0CFR72.216.

2. The proposed exemption to 10CFR72.75 given in 10CFR72.75(d) for licensees that have license conditions requiring compliance with IOCFRS0.72 reporting requirements does not meet the intent of the proposed regulation as given in the notice; specifically the requirements of I0CFRS0.72 and 10CFR72.75 are not uniform and therefore the Commission's intent (i.e., promptly reporting significant occurrences for Commission evaluation of licensee actions to protect the public health and safety or determination whether prompt NRC action is necessary to address generic safety concerns) will not be fulfilled. Below are examples of reporting differences between existing site-specific licensees and general licensees for ISFSis that will occur with the presently proposed rule:

A. The requirement in proposed IOCFR72.75(a)(l) is similar to that required by 10CFR50.72(b)(l)(vi), but the proposed requirement has a four hour reportability, whereas the existing one is a one hour reportable event. It is not apparent that such an event at an existing ISFSI with a site-specific license is more serious than one at an ISFSI not exempted from the requirements of IOCFR72.75 .

B. The same situation as described in A. exists between IOCFR72.75(a)(4) and 10CFRS0. 72(b)( 1)(i)(B ).

C. A I0CFRS0.72 equivalent to the reporting requirement for IOCFR72.75(a)(6) does not exist. However, it appears that an event reported under IOCFR72.75(a)(6) could also be reported under I0CFR72.75(a)(3), which in itself is a redundancy, and this requirement is identical to I0CFRS0.72 (b)(2)(vii)(B).

D. The proposed IOCFR72.75(b) is for 24-hour reportable events, no 24-hour reportable events exist in IOCFRS0.72.

E. The proposed 24-hour report in IOCFR72.75(b)(2)(i) could appear as a four-hour report in IOCFR50.72(b)(2)(ii)(C) or (D).

Attachment to 0CAN119303

' Page2 of2 Based on the above, it is clear that the NRC will not achieve uniform reporting from all its ISFSI licensees if the proposed rule is implemented with the exemption for site-specific licensees. Requiring all ISFSI licensees (site-specific or general) to utilize IOCFRS0. 72 would achieve uniform reporting requirements and consistent NRC review of similar events at ISFSis.

3. If IOCFR72.216 is to be revised to require compliance with IOCFR72.75, it would be logical to also revise it to reference I 0CFR72. 74 concerning criticality reporting requirements. Currently 10CFR72.216 does not include a reference to 10CFR72.74 and it is not clear if this reporting requirement also applies to general licensees.

4. The existing 10CFR72.216 (a){l) and (2) are identical to IOCFRS0.72 (b)(2)(vii)(A) and (B) and the proposed 10CFR72.75(a) (2) and(3). This is extremely redundant. It would be better to: I) revise 10CFR72.216 and the proposed I0CFR72.75 to delete these requirements and reference the additional requirements in I0CFRS0.72, or 2) delete these requirements in I0CFRS0.72, delete the requirements in 10CFR72.216 and reference the use of I0CFR72.75, and require all ISFSI licensees to utilize 10CFR72.75.

Similarly, the requirements for written reports in 10CFR72.216(b}, proposed 10CFR72.75(c), and 10CFR50.72(b)(2)(vii) are redundant. These requirements should be deleted from 10CFR72.216(b) and 10CFR50.72(b){2){vii), with the addition of a requirement for all ISFSI licensees to utilize the requirements for written reports included in the proposed 10CFR72.75.

R e

0OCKc:T NUMBER Commonwealth Edison PROPOSED RULE..!.!!.....,;;.;;.;-...-

1400 Opus Place Downers Grove, Illinois 60515 (>"S-F R '-f ~O'-'/) [~OCK[.. LU US Nf,L,

• 93 IQ I 29 p 6 :~J November 24, 1993 Mr. Samuel J. Chilk, Secretary U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

- Washington D. C. 20555 Attention: Docketing and Services Branch

Subject:

Proposed Rulemaking to 10 CFR Part 72, "Notification of Events at Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installations and the Monitored Retrievable Storage Installation", 58 Fed. Reg. 47223 (September 14, 1993)

Commonwealth Edison Company appreciates the opportunity to comment on the proposed amendments to 10 CFR part 72. Overall we believe that the proposed reporting requirements are generally consistent with existing part 50 requirements, and as such ensure that significant occurrences at fuel storage facilities are promptly reported to the NRC.

Sincerely, William F. Naughton, Director Strategic Licensing Policies & Issues Acknowledged by card ....!f..!. .t.~

t .. * ~ *' '/',. SS ION

• t..1., T 0

, *- ARY

I

':_'

• I SION L , ,I

~ /747>'7 ~~ ~-a~~

1/ If_~~~~ ~ ~,

'ti-t~ to Ul~7 ~~Vt,~~

~ ~ ~5?"SJ4 ~ 2:/-tw ~ ~

~ ~ 1 ~ d 4 - M ~ ~~ ~ ~

UJ~, tt/4-r~~~%~'7

~ w-iu ~ ~ JP" ~ a,e, ~

M~I~~ ~~~%~

~~/~'

r t#vi ~ w ~ ~ ~ _ ~ ~

~ ,;.,-u<<~-u..f-u,11.ec~~

~ n ~ ; Jn -[k ~ ~ / ~ ~ ~

~?'L  % ~ 3/4, ~ ~ t/1/ ~ n t::( ~ -

~~ ~ r d [ ~ v I / ~ I~

jf'/4,,,nt,h / h' ~ / ~ - tf./7( ~

~ ~ hi ~ ~ ~ k ~~

~ k -t f-i, d / ~- ~

~/.,

~ ~~ u ~ , a<<~~~

~ ~ &(_ b : , ~ r ~~

~ ~ k,< tU'- t/4---T5T5..7 ~ ~

~~~/

~~~

--*<-~~"" *"'**

.~"-ik',:;J,* s'1'A'.t"'),%,\lt,,

n*1c ' ET NU .1BER PROPO ED RULE p

Sl. . - . . , . ...;;...;.;:.- ---------- ,

DEPARTME/:*_*,.Y,, :;~ :-.- .A R *~~~ETY (SR-FR L/t(y}i 10 *; , \TE

~~7~ ' 16 (j) 1 SPRI1? P2 :58 Jim Edgar \[q,.

• Thomas W. Ortciger Governor 2' ** * * - Director November 8, 1993 Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555

- Attn: Docketing and Service Branch Re: Proposed Rule on Notification of Events at Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installations and the Monitored Retrievable Storage Installation (10CFR72, Section 72.75, et al.)

The Illinois Department of Nuclear Safety {IDNS) is the lead agency in Illinois with statutory responsibility for responding to accidents involving radioactive materials. With respect to the proposed rule, IDNS views the concept of uniform notification requirements as a logical extension of the Part 72 emergency planning licensing requirements previously proposed for Independent Spent Fuel Storage Facilities (ISFSI) and Monitored Retrievable Storage Facilities (MRS).

As IDNS indicated in its July 27, 1993, comments on the earlier Part 72 emergency planning proposal, the Department takes the position that appropriate off-site agencies should be notified immediatelv. i.e., within 15 minutes, of any classifiable accident, and that timely notification is essential to ensure that emergency response actions, when required, are not unduly or unnecessarily delayed.

IDNS is satisfied that notifications involving problems with on-site storage facilities at commercial nuclear power plants will be adequately handled under existing Part 50 emergency preparedness plans. Meanwhile, the Department is working with the GE Morris facility in Illinois to develop notification procedures as part of the facility's emergency response plan that will ensure IDNS is promptly advised of any situation with potential off-site impact.

In that context, the Department is concerned that the time frames in the NRC's proposed notification requirements under Part 72.75 pose some potential conflicts for licensees and states.

The proposed language of Part 72.74 (a) would allow 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> to elapse between the time an emergency situation is discovered and the time it is reported to the NRC for incidents that may require immediate actions to

@ recyclable MAY 1 0 19~

Acknowledged by card ......."_..........".........

CO f,IISS ION SECTiON r:1ARY ON Docur-::

• e"t° **cs

Secretary Page 2 November 8, 1993 protect the public. Events such as those described, i.e., fires, explosions, toxic gas releases, etc., could in many instances necessitate an off-site response requiring immediate notification of local authorities. The Department's concern is that under the proposed rule, licensees may not feel bound to notify the appropriate local or state response organizations (in this case, IDNS) in advance of the required notification to the NRC.

Similarly, the proposed language of Part 72.75 (b), would allow up to 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> before notification of an event involving unplanned contamination Mthat requires access to the contaminated area by workers or the public to be restricted for more than 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />," or one in which Msafety equipment is disabled or fails to function." Here again, an interpretation by a licensee that notification to the state could be delayed for up to 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> would not allow responsible state authorities to respond in a timely manner. Moreover, the loss of safety equipment designed Mto prevent exposures exceeding regulatory limits" is considered, in prudent emergency planning methodology, a precursor to a more serious incident.

The Department recognizes that for the NRC's purposes, the 4-hour and 24-hour notification time frames suggested may be appropriate. However, in the interest of protecting public health and safety, the rule should stipulate that licensees may be required to provide immediate notification to state and/or local emergency response organizations under a more stringent time constraint, in accordance with emergency contingency procedures agreed to between the facilities and the appropriate jurisdictions.

While acknowledging that most incidents anticipated at ISFSI and MRS facilities are substantially less hazardous than those involving commercial reactor operations, the Department further believes that notification requirements for classifiable emergency situations should be uniform for all licensees. Timely coordinated notifications between facility operators and governmental response personnel will serve to ensure appropriate response when necessary, as well as providing assurances to the public that their health and safety are paramount concerns.

We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this proposed rule. If you require additional information, please contact me at (217) 785-9868.

incerely Tomas W.

Director TWO:tlk cc: James Ellis, GE Morris

I DOCKET NUMBER~

PROPOSED RULE r "'r~-

(S 8" FR 'lfD0'-1 OOCKETCO USNHC

[7590-01-P]

• 93 (',-~ 15 "n :';4

_*<.. ; .. *!- * ..... ~

. . . ' t\'1,.t..* ,&;

• NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

~\e~N~s***~ M 10 CFR PART 72 RIN 3150-AE37 Notification of Events at Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installations and the Monitored Retrievable Storage Installati on AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY

The Nuclear Regulatory Commi ssion (NRC) proposes to amend its regulations to revise licensee reporting requirements regarding the notification of events related to radiation safety at Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installations (ISFSis) and a Monitored Retrievable Storage Installation (MRS}. This action will ensure that significant occurrences at these licensed facilities are promptly reported to NRC so that the Commission can evaluate whether the licensee has taken appropriate actions to protect the public health and safety and whether prompt NRC action is necessary to address generic safety concerns.

DATE: The comment period expires !_~j_?::_°J(~riys after date of publication in the Federal Register.) Conments 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.

ADDRESSES: Mail written comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, 20555, Attention: Docketing and Service Branch.

Comments may be delivered to One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD, 20852, between 7:45 am and 4:15 pm on Federal workdays.

Copies of the draft regulatory analysis, the finding of no significant impact, the supporting statement submitted to 0MB, and comments received may be examined at: The NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street NW. (Lower Level), Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Naiem S. Tanious, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, 20555. Telephone (301) 492-3878.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

- On August 16, 1991 (56 FR 40757), the NRC amended its regulations in Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), Parts 20, 30, 40, and 70 to better describe those events that must be reported to the NRC because they pose a hazard to public health and safety or the environment. These new reporting requirements covered the following areas: Inability to control licensed material, unplanned contamination events, failure of safety equipment, personal injury events, and fires and explosions.

Public comments received when the amendments were proposed suggested that Part 72 also be amended to require notification of events at ISFSis and 2

the MRS. The NRC responded that it would consider the suggestion and initiate rulemaking to amend Part 72, if appropriate. In considering the suggestion, the NRC reviewed the event reporting requirements imposed on Part 72 licensees and found that, except for criticality, Part 72 itself contains no reporting requirements for the types of events covered by the recent amendments to Parts 30, 40, and 70. Furthermore, among the six existing Part 72 licensees, the reporting requirements {imposed by license conditions) were not consistent.

Therefore, the NRC has now decided that it is desirable to proceed with amending Part 72.

Discussion The event reporting requirements which are the subject of this proposed rulemaking are similar to those added to Parts 30, 40, and 70. The NRC believes that the proposed requirements more accurately describe events that must be reported to the NRC because they affect the health and safety of the public and the environment .

• The intent of event reporting requirements is to require timely notification (either immediately or within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />, depending on severity) to the NRC of events that could require prompt action by the NRC to protect public health and safety or the environment. Events that may require notification include personal injuries, fires, explosions, toxic gas releases, tornados, etc. Prompt NRC actions may include evaluating the potential hazards and corrective actions being taken by the licensee, issuing immediate warnings of generic hazards to other licensees, communicating with other 3

Federal and State organizations, activating the NRC incident response center, or dispatching a response team to the site of the event.

With one exception (i.e., GE Morris), ISFSis currently licensed under Part 72 are located at corrmercial power reactor sites, and those reactor licensees are already subject to event reporting requirements under 10 CFR 50.72 as well as, in some cases, under Part 72 license conditions. The proposed amendments would therefore achieve consistent event reporting requirements for ISFSis and an MRS with very little practical impact on current Part 72 licensees.

To avoid conflicts, the proposed amendments do not apply to licensee events subject to the reporting requirements in 10 CFR Section 50.72 by virtue of license conditions included in their Part 72 licenses~ However, these amendments would otherwise apply to commercial power reactor licensees for activities licensed under Part 72; the amendments also apply to research and test reactor licensees possessing material licensed under Part 72 who are not subject to the notification requirements in§ 50.72. For simplicity, a nuclear power plant licensee who holds both Part 50 and Part 72 licenses may use reporting requirements from Part 50 for reporting events from both the reactor and the ISFSI. Furthermore, the licensee would not necessarily make any changes to comply with the requirements of this rule if the reporting requirements in the technical specifications for ISFSI would be at least as stringent as the reporting requirements proposed for Part 72.

If, as NRC now intends, this proposed rule becomes final, conforming license amendments may be issued by the NRC to resolve any remaining conflicts between the newly promulgated rule and existing license conditions. If conforming license amendments are required, the NRC intends to issue these 4

amendments on its own initiative without a formal submittal from the licensee requesting the amendments.

The NRC specifically requests public cormnents on (1) the completeness of these reporting requirements, (2) the number of reports that licensees expect might be generated yearly, (3) how to minimize reports of events that do not require a prompt NRC response without excluding any events that do require prompt NRC actions, and (4) events that would require prompt NRC actions but are not covered under the proposed amendments.

For purposes of Section 223 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, concerning violations under circumstances set forth in that section, the amendments are proposed for issuance under Sections 161b, 16li, or 1610 of the Act.

A. Immediate Notification A period of 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> would be the maximum time allowed for "irmnediate notification" by Part 72 licensees. It is intended that licensees will notify

• the NRC of events requiring immediate notification, as described below, as soon as possible, but in no case later than four hours after discovery of the event. The proposed "inunediate notification" requirements are consistent with the immediate notification requirements specified in § 50.72 for power reactors.

Control of Spent Fuel or High-Level Radioactive Waste. The primary responsibility for controlling spent nuclear fuel (as defined in 10 CFR 72.3, spent fuel includes the special nuclear material, byproduct material, source 5

material, and other radioactive materials associated with fuel assemblies), or high-level radioactive waste (HLW) 1 rests with the licensee. It is important that the NRC immediately receive reports of events that prevent the licensee from performing immediate actions necessary to maintain control of spent fuel or HLW and from protecting the public. Licensees will need to exercise some judgment in determining when events require immediate NRC notification. After an event has been discovered, the licensee must determine what immediate actions are necessary to: (I) maintain and verify control of all spent fuel or HLW involved and (2) avoid exposures to radiation or radioactive materials that could exceed regulatory limits, or to releases of spent fuel and HLW that could exceed regulatory limits. Events may include fires, explosions, toxic gas releases, natural phenomena that can cause damage such as tornados and earthquakes, etc. An immediate NRC notification would be required if the event prevented the licensee from performing any of those actions, regardless of the duration of the event.

The NRC expects licensees to report as soon as possible any event where personnel normally able to take an immediate action are somehow prevented from taking the action. An immediate action is an initial action taken after a hazardous situation is identified to minimize exposures to radiation or radioactive materials, or to minimize releases of radioactive materials.

Immediate actions would normally be taken within 15 minutes of identifying the hazard. The NRC does not expect immediate reports of normal delays associated with sounding alarms and responding to the site of the emergency. However, if alarms cannot be sounded or personnel cannot respond, an immediate report (within 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br />) would be required. A normal delay in responding to an event such as the time to drive to the site or the time to call the fire department 6

would not be reportable. However, once responders are available and able to do the job, any additional delay would be reportable.

Examples of cases where an immediate report would be required include: A toxic gas leak near an operation that prevents workers from immediately reducing a high radiation field around the leak; a fire that prevents workers from immediately securing a ventilation system to stop a release of airborne radioactive material exceeding regulatory limits; and a collapsed ceiling from an explosion that prevents workers from i11111ediately closing a valve to stop a release of radioactive material exceeding regulatory limits.

Power Reactors usjng Storage Casks. Pursuant to§ 72.216(c), as proposed, reporting requirements would be added by this proposed rule in§ 72.75 (a)(2) and (a)(3) to cover power reactors licensed under Part 50 who are also using fuel storage casks under a general license issued under§ 72.210 (Subpart K-General License for Storage of Spent Fuel at Power Reactor Sites).

These ISFSI general licensees are required by§ 72.216 and§ 50.72 (b)(2)(vi1) to report invnediately, but not later than 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br />, any defect in a spent fuel storage cask structure, system, or component which is important to safety, or a significant reduction in the effectiveness of any spent fuel storage cask confinement system. Adding these requirements to the new section 72.75 will establish consistent reporting requirements among all licensees using spent fuel storage casks.

A reporting requirement is being proposed in§ 72.75 (a)(4) to cover immediate actions needed to protect the public health and safety taken in an emergency that depart from a license condition or a technical specification.

(To combat a fire, for example the licensee may take measures that are not 7

normally allowed by the license.) This proposed requirement is based on existing requirements in Parts 50.72(b)(l)(i)(B) and 50.54(x). Adding this reporting requirement to § 72.75 will ensure that such reports will still be required if the Part 50 license is tenninated and the ISFSI continues operation under a specific Part 72 license.

Personal Injury Events. A requirement would be added for licensees to report as soon as possible but not later than 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> after discovering any event that requires unplanned medical treatment at a medical facility of an individual with radioactive contamination on the individual's clothing or body which could cause further contamination. These events are significant because they may (1) indicate physical safety problems in a licensed operation, (2) risk internal contamination through open wounds, and (3) expose medical personnel to radiation and contamination.

This information is necessary to provide the basis for an independent determination by the NRC that appropriate actions have been taken both to control the spread of contamination and to perform any.necessary decontamination. Prompt action may also be required to investigate the cause of the injury and to prevent additional contamination problems. If within 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> of discovering the personal injury event the licensee has not verified whether the individual receiving medical treatment was contaminated, the licensee is expected to act conservatively and report the event.

The requirement to report personal injury events is being proposed as an immediate report rather than the 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> reporting requirement established in Parts 30, 40, and 70 to make the proposed requirement consistent with.

8

§ 50.72 (b}(2)(v} which requires a 4 hour4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> report from power reactors. As stated earlier, most facilities licensed under Part 72 are located at power reactor sites; and event reporting has been incorporated into the administrative procedures for the power reactors. As a result, those Part 72 facilities would already report personal injury events within 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br />. The NRC is proposing to make this consistent with Part 50 because most Part 72 facilities are so closely associated with power reactors. As for research and test reactors, which will be covered by this proposed rule, there are no licenses issued under part 72 to these nonpower reactors for independent storage of their spent fuel. The NRC believes that the impact of this requirement on Part 72 facilities which are not located at power reactor sites (i.e., GE Morris) will be minimal.

Fires and Explosions. A new requirement would be added to report as soon as possible but not later than 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> after discovering any fire or explosion that damages spent fuel or HLW, or any device, container, or equipment that contains spent fuel or HLW. These events must be evaluated promptly to minimize any spread of contamination and to determine the performance of shielding and other features designed to control spent fuel or HLW. Fires or explosions that dama~e spent fuel or HLW are of particular significance because they can cause radioactive materials to be released, generate airborne radioactive contamination, and generate contaminated runoff from water used to extinguish fires. A second notification is not required if an immediate notification was made for a fire or explosion that prevented immediate response actions (see the discussion above for control of spent fuel or HLW).

9

This information is necessary to assure the NRC that appropriate actions have been taken to detect and control any releases that may have occurred.

Prompt action may be required to verify survey results and radiological controls for recovery efforts. In the event of a fire or explosion, an immediate report would be required if licensee personnel or firefighters were prevented by radiation hazards or other conditions from performing invnediate response actions that they would normally be able to perform. However, if no immediate response actions were prevented, but there was damage that affected the integrity of the spent fuel or HLW or its container, an immediate report would still be required. If within 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> of discovering the fire or explosion the licensee has not verified whether any reportable damage occurred, the licensee is expected to act conservatively and report the event.

B. 24-Hour Notification Contamination Events. The proposed rule would require licensees to notify the NRC within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> of discovering any unplanned contamination

- event that requires access to the contaminated area, by workers or the public, to be restricted for more than 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> through the imposition of additional radiological controls or prohibiting entry into the area. If a licensee discovers that an area has unexpectedly been contaminated with a licensed material, the NRC expects the licensee to impose appropriate controls to keep exposures and releases as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA) until the area can be decontaminated. If controls beyond those required before the contamination event occurred are necessary for more than 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />, a report would be required.

10

Safety Eguipment Related Events. A reporting requirement would be added_

for licensees to report within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> of discovering any event in which equipment is disabled or fails to function as designed if {1) the equipment is required by regulation or license condition to prevent releases or exposures exceeding regulatory limits, or to mitigate the consequences of an accident;

{2) the equipment is required to be available and operable when it is disabled or fails; and (3) no redundant equipment is available and operable to perform the required safety function when the failure occurs. This r~porting requirement includes equipment failure, equipment damage, and procedural errors which cause equipment to fail or be disabled. NRC must be aware of these events to identify potential safety hazards and to ensure that the licensee takes appropriate actions to protect workers and the public.

Licensees will need to exercise some judgment in determining when an event requires a 24-hour NRC notification. First, the licensee must determine whether the inoperable equipment was required by regulation or license condition to prevent releases or overexposures exceeding regulatory limits, or mitigate the consequences of an accident. Second, the licensee must determine whether the function of the equipment, or the availability of the function was needed when the equipment was disabled or failed to function. A 24-hour notification is not required under this requirement if neither the function nor its availability was required when the equipment was ino~erable. Third, the licensee must determine whether redundant equipment was operable and available to perform the required safety function. The accident consequences to be mitigated by the equipment include major property damage, widespread contamination of uncontrolled areas, or fatalities or serious injuries requiring medical treatment.

11

The following are examples of events that would require a 24-hour NRC notification:

(1) Damage to a filtered ventilation system, required by regulation or license condition, that permits effluent air to bypass filters during operations. This bypass could result in either releases that exceed regulatory limits or exposure of personnel to levels of airborne radioactive material that exceed regulatory limits.

(2) Failure of equipment or shielding materials required by regulation or license condition to shield radiation from spent fuel or HLW.

(3) Failure of monitoring equipment required by regulation or license condition to verify that safe criticality conditions exist while spent fuel bundles are being moved in a pool.

This information is necessary to assure the NRC that when the function of required safety equipment has been lost, the licensee has taken appropriate action to compensate for the lost safety function or to eliminate the hazard requiring the safety function.

Written Reports The proposed rule would require a written report within 30 days of any immediate or 24-hour notification. Written reports prepared pursuant to other regulations may be submitted to fulfill this requirement if the report contains all of the necessary information and the appropriate distribution is made.

12

Applicability of the Rule The NRC believes the that the proposed rule will have little or no impact on current Part 72 licensees. The proposed rule would not apply to power reactor licensees who do not store spent fuel under a Part 72 license.

The rule would apply to research and test reactor licensees possessing spent fuel under a Part 72 license, and not subject to the notification requirements in § 50.72. However, at the present time there are no Part 72 licenses issued to research or test reactor licensees. With one exception (i.e.,

General Electric, Morris, IL), all current Part 72 specific licensees are ISFSis operated by nuclear power plants holding Part 50 licenses. All of these power plants have incorporated their ISFSI into the reactor administrative procedures which include reporting procedures subject to the requirements in Section 50.72. Therefore, the proposed rule would have no impact on these ISFSis.

Environmental Impact: Categorical Exclusion The NRC has determined that this proposed rule is the type of action described in the categorical exclusion 10 CFR 51.22(c){3)(iii). Therefore, neither an environmental impact statement nor an environmental assessment has been prepared for this regHlation.

Paperwork Reduction Act Statement This proposed rule amends information collection requirements that are subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). This 13

rule has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for review and approval of the paperwork requirements.

The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br /> per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to the Infonnation and Records Management Branch (MNBB-7714), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, 20555; and to the Desk Officer, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, NEOB-3019 (3150-0132), Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC, 20503.

Regulatory Analysis The Commission has prepared a draft regulatory analysis on this proposed regulation. The 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 draft analysis may be obtained from Naiem S.

Tanious, telephone (301) 492-3878. The Conrnission requests public comments on the draft regulatory analysis. Comments on the draft analysis may be submitted to the NRC as indicated under the ADDRESSES heading.

14

Regulatory Flexibility Certification The NRC has prepared a draft regulatory analysis of the impact of this proposed rule on small entities. The draft analysis indicates that the proposed rule is estimated to have no significant economic impact on Part 72 licensees, because the estimated cost to industry of reporting postulated events would be in the range of$ 0 - 2112 annually. Moreover, none of the current Part 72 licensees are considered small entities. The proposed rule would apply to research and test reactors who are small entities, should they choose to store spent fuel under a Part 72 license. However none of these are Part 72 licensees at present. In any case, no report would be required of licensees unless there is an incident involving spent fuel or HLW that meets the criteria specified in the proposed amendments. Hence, the impact on Part 72 licensees should be minimal. 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 draft analysis may be obtained from Naiem S. Tanious, telephone (301) 492-3878.

Backfit Analysis The NRC has determined that the backfit rule 10 CFR 50.109, does not apply to this groposed rule because these amendments do not involve any

~

provisions which would impose backfits on licensees as defined in

§ 50.109(a)(l). Also, the NRC has determined that backfitting requirements in § 72.62 do not apply to this proposed rule because the proposed event reporting requirements are not procedures required to operate an ISFSI or MRS.

Therefore a backfit analysis is not required.

15

List of Subjects 10 CFR Part 72 Manpower training programs, Nuclear materials, Occupational safety and health, 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 of 1954, as amended; the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended; the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended; and 5 U.S.C.

553, the Commission is proposing to adopt the following amendments to 10 CFR Part 72.

PART 72--LICENSING REQUIREMENTS FOR THE INDEPENDENT STORAGE OF SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL AND HIGH-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE

1. The authority citation for Part 72 is revised to read as follows:

AUTHORITY: Secs. 51, 53, 57, 62, 63, 65, 69, 81, 161, 182, 183, 184, 186, 187, 189, 68 Stat. 929, 930, 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, 2236, 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 (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. 1330-235 (42 U.S.C. 10151, 10152, 10153, 10155, 10157, 10161, 10168}.

16

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 sec 189, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2239); sec. 144, Pub. L.97-425, 96 Stat. 2230 (42 U.S.C. 10154). Section 72.96(d) also issued under sec. 145 (g), Pub. L. 100-203, 101 Stat. 1330-235 (42 U.S.C.

10165(g); Subpart J also issued under secs. 2(2), 2(15), 2(19}, 117(a),

14l(h), Pub. L.97-425, 96 Stat. 2202, 2203, 2204, 2222, 2224 (42 U.S.C.

10101, 10137(a), 10161(h)). Subparts Kand Lare also issued under sec. 133, 98 Stat. 2230 (42 U.S.C. 10153} and sec. 218(a), 96 Stat. 2252 (42 U.S.C.

10198).

2. A new§ 72.75 under Subpart D - Records, Reports, Inspections, and 11 Enforcement" - is added to read as follows:

§ 72.75 Reporting Requirements for Events Other than Criticality.

(a} Immediate report. Each licensee shall notify the NRC as soon as possible but not later than 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> after the discovery of any of the

- following events or conditions involving spent fuel or HLW:

(1) An event that prevents il'l111ediate actions necessary to avoid exposures to radiation or radioactive materials that could exceed regulatory limits, or releases of radioactive materials that could exceed regulatory limits (events may include fires, explosions, toxic gas releases, *etc.).

(2} A defect in any spent fuel storage structure, system, or component which is important to safety.

(3) A significant reduction in the effectiveness of any spent fuel storage confinement system during use.

17

(4) An action taken in an emergency that departs from a license condition or a technical specification contained in a license issued under this part when the action is irrrnediately needed to protect the public health and safety and no action consistent with license conditions and technical specifications that can provide adequate or equivalent protection is i11111ediately apparent.

(5) An event that requires unplanned medical treatment at a medical facility of an individual with radioactive contamination on the individual's clothing or body which could cause further radioactive contamination.

(6) An unplanned fire or explosion damaging any spent fuel or HLW, or any device, container, or equipment containing spent fuel or HLW when the damage affects the integrity of the material or its container.

(b} Twenty-four hour report. Each licensee shall notify the NRC within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> after the discovery of any of the following events involving spent fuel or HLW:

(1) Any unplanned contamination event that requires access to the contaminated area by workers or the public to be restricted for more than 24

- hours by imposing additional radiological controls or by prohibiting entry into the area.

{2} An event in which safety equipment is disabled or fails to function as designed when: {i) The equipment is required by regulation or licensee condition to prevent releases exceeding regulatory limits, to prevent exposures to radiation and radioactive materials exceeding regulatory limits, or to mitigate the consequences of an accident; (ii) The equipment is required to be available and operable when it is disabled or fails to function; and (iii) No redundant equipment is available and operable to perform the required safety function.

18

(c) Preparation and submission of reports. Reports made by licensees in response to the requirements of this section must be made as follows:

(1) Licensees shall make reports required by paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section by telephone to the NRC Operations Center. 1 To the extent that the information is available at the time of notification, the information provided on these reports must include: (i) The caller's name and call back telephone number; {ii) A description of the event, including date and time; (iii) the exact location of the event; {iv) The quantities, and chemical and physical form of the spent fuel or HLW involved; and (v) Any personnel radiation exposure data available.

{2) Written report. Each licensee who makes a report required by paragraph {a) or (b) of this section shall submit a written follow-up report within 30 days of the initial report. Written reports prepared pursuant to other regulations may be submitted to fulfill this requirement if the reports

.- contain all of the necessary information and the appropriate distribution is made. These written reports must be sent to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Co111111ssion, Document Control Desk, Washington, DC, 20555, with a copy to the 4I appropriate NRC Regional Office listed in Appendix D of 10 CFR Part 20. The reports must include the following: (i) A description of the event, including the probable cause and the manufacturer and model number (if applicable) of any equipment that failed or malfunctioned; {ii) the exact location of the event; {iii) Quantities, and chemical and physical form of the spent fuel or HLW involved; (iv) Date and ,time of the event; (v} Corrective actions taken or planned and the results of any evaluations or assessments; and (vi) The extent 1

The corrmercial telephone number for the NRC Operations Center is (301) 951-0550.

19

of exposure of individuals to radiation or to radioactive materials without identification of individuals by name.

(d) The provisions of§ 72.75 do not apply to licensees who are required by their Part 72 licenses to comply with the notification requirements in § 50.72 of this chapter. They do apply to research and test reactor licensees possessing material licensed under Part 72 who are not subject to the notification requirements in § 50.72.

3. Section 72.216 under Subpart K - "Reports 11 - is amended by adding a new paragraph (c) to read as follows:

(c) The general licensee shall comply with § 72.75 of this chapter according to the terms of that section. . /

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this ~-tJI, day of --~t:a;:!!-.,z:*/.______ , 1993.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Co11Y11ission.

r Operations.

20