[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 218 (Thursday, November 12, 1998)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 63127-63130]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-30253]
========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.
The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.
Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each
week.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 218 / Thursday, November 12, 1998 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 63127]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
10 CFR Parts 50 and 70
RIN 3150-AF87
Criticality Accident Requirements
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is amending its
regulations to give licensees of light-water nuclear power reactors
greater flexibility in meeting the requirement that licensees
authorized to possess more than a small amount of special nuclear
material (SNM) maintain a criticality monitoring system in each area in
which the material is handled, used, or stored. This action is taken as
a result of the experience gained in processing and evaluating a number
of exemption requests from such licensees and NRC's safety assessments
in response to these requests that concluded that the likelihood of
criticality was negligible.
EFFECTIVE DATE: The final rule is effective on December 14, 1998.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael T. Jamgochian, Office of
Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: (301) 415-3224; e-mail:
mtj1@nrc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is amending its
regulations to give persons licensed to construct or operate light-
water nuclear power reactors the option of either meeting the
criticality accident requirements of paragraph (a) through (c) of 10
CFR 70.24 in handling and storage areas for SNM, or electing to comply
with certain requirements that are set forth in a new Section 50.68 in
10 CFR Part 50. The requirements in Section 50.68 are generally the
requirements that the NRC has used to grant specific exemptions from
the requirements of 10 CFR 70.24. In addition, the NRC is deleting the
current text of Section 70.24(d) concerning the granting of specific
exemptions from Section 70.24 because it is redundant to 10 CFR
70.14(a). Section 70.24(d) is rewritten to provide that the
requirements in paragraphs (a) through (c) of 10 CFR 70.24 do not apply
to holders of a construction permit or operating license for a nuclear
power reactor issued under 10 CFR Part 50, or combined licenses issued
under 10 CFR Part 52, if the holders comply with the requirements of 10
CFR 50.68(b).
II. Discussion
On December 3, 1997 (62 FR 63825), the NRC published a direct final
rule in the Federal Register that would have provided persons licensed
to construct or operate light-water nuclear power reactors with the
option of either meeting the criticality accident requirements of
paragraph (a) of 10 CFR 70.24 in handling and storage areas for SNM, or
electing to comply with requirements that would be incorporated into 10
CFR Part 50 at 10 CFR 50.68. A direct final rule (62 FR 63825) and a
parallel proposed rule (62 FR 63911) amending Parts 70 and 50 were
published in the Federal Register on December 3, 1997. The statement of
considerations for the direct final rule and the proposed rule stated
that if significant adverse comments were received on the direct final
rule, the NRC would withdraw the direct final rule and would address
the comments in a subsequent final rule. Significant adverse comments
were received from the public, and on February 25, 1998, the NRC
published a notice withdrawing the direct final rule and revoking the
regulatory text. Since the direct final rule had an effective date of
February 17, 1998, it was necessary for the February 25, 1998 notice to
revoke the regulatory text which became effective on February 17, 1998,
as well as to withdraw the direct final rule. With the withdrawal and
revocation, the proposed rule is the only regulatory proposal
remaining. The NRC has determined to modify the proposed rule to
address public comments and to make several editorial clarifications.
The analysis of and response to the public comments to the proposed
rule are set forth below.
III. Comments on the Proposed Rule
The NRC received comments on the December 3, 1997, proposed rule
(62 FR 63911) from Commonwealth Edison, Carolina Power & Light Company,
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Nuclear Energy Institute, Northern
States Power Company, Trojan Nuclear Plant, and Detroit Edison. Copies
of the letters are available for public inspection and copying for a
fee at the Commission's Public Document Room, located at 2120 L Street,
NW. (Lower Level), Washington, DC. Many of the comment letters
suggested editorial type changes, some of which have been incorporated
into this final rule. The comments are classified into nine general
comments and are addressed as follows:
Comment 1: The proposed rule should not prohibit licensees from
applying for exemptions under the guidelines of 10 CFR 70.14 and should
contain provisions to note that any existing approved exemptions remain
valid.
Response: Even though the wording of paragraph (d) in the current
version of 10 CFR 70.24, which provides for applying for exemptions
should ``good cause'' exist, is being deleted, licensees are not
prohibited from applying for such exemptions under the guidelines of
paragraph (a) of 10 CFR 70.14, ``Specific Exemptions.''
The standard for issuance of exemptions under Section 70.14 is
essentially the same as the ``good cause'' criterion in paragraph (d)
of Section 70.24. Therefore, its removal from Section 70.24(d) will not
change the standard for, or otherwise serve to limit the granting of,
exemptions to Section 70.24.
This rulemaking does not affect the status of exemptions to the
requirements of Section 70.24 that were previously granted by the NRC.
A licensee currently holding an exemption to Section 70.24 may continue
operation under its existing exemption (including any applicable
conditions imposed as part of the granting of the exemption) and its
current programs and commitments without any further action.
Alternatively, a licensee
[[Page 63128]]
currently holding exemptions to Section 70.24 may elect to comply with
the new alternative provided under Section 50.68(b), but if it does so,
its exemption would be inapplicable and would not serve as a basis for
avoiding compliance with the criteria listed in Section 50.68(b). A
licensee whose exemption was issued as part of its operating license
and whose exemption contained conditions imposed as part of the
granting of the exemption, need not apply for a license amendment to
delete the exemption conditions as a prerequisite for complying with
Section 50.68(b).
Comment 2: For many BWRs, optimum moderation calculations are not
performed for the fresh fuel storage racks because administrative
controls are in place to preclude these conditions. In accordance with
vendor recommendations, compensatory measures have been established to
preclude an optimum moderation condition in the fresh fuel storage
racks. The rule should contain a provision that exempts this
requirement if adequate controls have been established to preclude an
optimum moderation condition.
Response: The NRC agrees and has added the following provision to
10 CFR 50.68(b)(3): ``This evaluation need not be performed if
administrative control and/or design features prevent such moderation,
or if fresh fuel storage racks are not used.''
Comment 3. The rule should eliminate the reference to General
Design Criterion 63 (GDC 63) and should describe the underlying
monitoring requirements.
Response: The reference to GDC 63 was initially incorporated to
ensure that licensees receiving an exemption to 10 CFR 70.24 would not
erroneously view the exemption as the basis for removing from the spent
fuel pool area radiation monitors that were installed to meet other
monitoring requirements, such as those contained in 10 CFR 20.1501 and
GDC 63. This rule change does not affect these other monitoring
requirements; therefore, referencing GDC 63 has been deleted.
Comment 4. Placing a limit on enrichment offers no direct safety
benefit and should not be included.
Response: The NRC disagrees with the comment. The maximum allowable
nominal enrichment of reactor fuel is currently limited to 5-weight
percent on the basis of possible criticality concerns even in a dry
environment, as well as currently approved extensions to 10 CFR 51.52
based on an environmental impact study for enrichments higher than 5-
weight percent. Any future approved enrichment extension can be readily
handled by modifying this criterion.
Comment 5. Replace ``may not permit'' with ``shall prohibit the''
in Criterion (1).
Response: The NRC agrees and has used the phrase suggested by the
commenters.
Comment 6. Use of ``pure water'' and ``unborated water'' should be
consistent.
Response: The NRC agrees. The final rule uses the term ``unborated
water.''
Comment 7. Criteria (2) and (3) should not be applicable if the
licensee does not use the fresh fuel storage racks.
Response: The NRC agrees and has added the following provision to
10 CFR 50.68 (b)(2) and (b)(3): ``This evaluation need not be performed
if administrative controls and/or design features prevent such
moderation or if fresh fuel storage racks are not used.''
Comment 8. The meaning of ``transportation'' in criterion (1) is
unclear.
Response: The NRC agrees and has deleted the term.
Comment 9. The phrase ``maximum permissible U-235 enrichment'' in
Criteria (2), (3), and (4) should be replaced by the phrase ``maximum
fuel assembly reactivity.''
Response: The NRC agrees and has used the phrase suggested by the
commenter.
IV. Section-by-Section Analysis
10 CFR 50.68
Paragraph (a) of Section 50.68 allows a nuclear power plant
licensee (including a holder of either a construction permit or a
combined operating license) the option of complying with Section 70.24
(a) through (c), or complying with the requirements in paragraph (b) of
Section 50.68. The corresponding provision in Section 70.24 is
paragraph (d).
Paragraph (b) sets forth eight specific requirements which a
licensee must comply with so long as it chooses under the provisions of
Section 50.68 to avoid compliance with the requirements of Section
70.24 (a) through (c).
A licensee currently holding an exemption to Section 70.24 may
elect to comply with the new alternative provided under Section 50.68,
but if it does so, its exemption to Section 70.24 is inapplicable to,
and would not serve as a basis for avoiding compliance with the eight
criteria in Section 50.68(b).
10 CFR 70.24
Paragraph (d)(1) of Section 70.24 allows a nuclear power plant
licensee (including a holder of either a construction permit or a
combined operating license) the option of complying with Section 70.24
(a) through (c), or complying with the requirements in 10 CFR Section
50.68. This paragraph is the corresponding provision to Section
50.68(a).
Paragraph (d)(2) clarifies that the status of exemptions to the
requirements of Section 70.24 that were previously granted by the NRC
continue unaffected by this rulemaking. A licensee currently holding an
exemption to Section 70.24 may continue operation under its existing
exemption (including any applicable conditions imposed as part of the
grant of the exemption) and its current programs and commitments
without any further action.
A license that seeks an exemption from the requirements of Section
70.24 must meet the criteria for an exemption under Section 70.14. The
standard for issuance of exemptions remains unchanged from the old
rule, since the Commission regards the former ``good cause'' criterion
under the previous version of Section 70.24(d) as being essentially the
same as the standard for issuance of exemptions under Paragraph 70.14.
V. Metric Policy
On October 7, 1992, the Commission published its final Policy
Statement on Metrication. According to that policy, after January 7,
1993, all new regulations and major amendments to existing regulations
were to be presented in dual units. The new addition and amendment to
the regulations contain no units.
VI. Finding of No Significant Environmental Impact
The NRC has determined under the National Environmental Policy Act
of 1969, as amended, and the Commission's regulations in Subpart A of
10 CFR Part 51, that this rule, would not be a major Federal action
significantly affecting the quality of the human environment; and
therefore, an environmental impact statement is not required. The final
rule provides an alternative to existing requirements on criticality
monitoring. The alternative method contained in the final rule in the
new Section 50.68 represents a codification of the criteria currently
used by the NRC for granting exemptions from the criticality monitoring
requirements in 10 CFR 70.24(a). These criteria provide an acceptable
alternative for assuring that there are no inadvertent criticality
events of special nuclear material at nuclear power reactors, which is
the purpose of the criticality monitoring
[[Page 63129]]
requirements in Section 70.24(a). Experience over 15 years has
demonstrated that the alternative criteria have been effective in
preventing inadvertent criticality events, and the NRC concludes that
as a matter of regulatory efficiency, there is no purpose to requiring
licensees to apply for and obtain exemptions from requirements of
Section 70.24(a) if they adhere to the alternative criteria in the new
Section 50.68. Since the alternative contained in Section 50.68
provides an equally effective method for preventing inadvertent
criticality events in nuclear power plants, the NRC concludes that the
final rule will not have any significant impact on the quality of the
human environment. Therefore, an environmental impact statement has not
been prepared for this regulation. This discussion constitutes the
environmental assessment for this rulemaking.
VII. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement
This final rule does not contain a new or amended information
collection requirement subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). Existing requirements were approved by the
Office of Management and Budget, approval numbers 3150-0009 and 3150-
0011.
VIII. 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.
IX. Regulatory Analysis
The current structure of the current 10 CFR 70.24 is overly broad
and places a burden on a licensee to identify those areas or operations
at its facility where the requirements are unnecessary, and to request
an exemption if the licensee has sufficient reason to be relieved from
the requirements. This existing structure has resulted in a large
number of exemption requests.
To relieve the burden on power reactor licensees of applying for,
and the burden on the NRC of granting exemptions, this amendment
permits power reactor facilities with nominal fuel enrichments no
greater than 5-weight percent of U-235 to be excluded from the scope of
10 CFR 70.24, provided they meet specific requirements being added to
10 CFR Part 50. This amendment is a result of the experience gained in
processing and evaluating a number of exemption requests from power
reactor licensees and NRC's safety assessments in response to these
requests which concluded that the likelihood of criticality was
negligible.
The only other viable option to this amendment is for the NRC to
make no changes and allow the licensees to continue requesting
exemptions. If no changes are made, the licensees will continue to
incur the costs of submitting exemptions and NRC will incur the costs
of reviewing them. Under this rule, an easing of the burden on
licensees results from not having to request exemptions. Similarly, the
NRC's burden will be reduced by avoiding the need to review and
evaluate these exemption requests.
This rule is not a mandatory requirement, but an easing of burden
action which results in regulatory efficiency. Also, the rule does not
impose any additional costs on existing licensees and has no negative
impact on public health and safety, but will provide savings to future
licensees, and may provide some reduction in burden to current
licensees whose current exemption includes conditions which are more
restrictive than the requirements in Section 50.68. There will also be
savings in resources to the NRC as well. Hence, the rule is shown to be
cost beneficial.
The foregoing constitutes the regulatory analysis for this final
rule.
X. Regulatory Flexibility Certification
In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C.
605(b), the NRC hereby certifies that this rule, if adopted, will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. This rule affects only the licensees of nuclear power plants.
These licensee companies that are dominant in their service areas, do
not fall within the scope of the definition of ``small entities'' set
forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, or the size
standards adopted by the NRC (10 CFR 2.810).
XI. Backfit Analysis
The NRC has determined that this rule does not impose a backfit as
defined in 10 CFR 50.109(a)(1), since it provides an alternative to
existing requirements on criticality monitoring. Accordingly, the NRC
has not prepared a backfit analysis for this rule.
XII. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
In accordance with the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996, the NRC has determined that this action is not a
``major rule'' and has verified this determination with the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget.
List of Subjects
10 CFR Part 50
Antitrust, Classified information, Criminal penalties, Fire
protection, Intergovernmental relations, Nuclear power plants and
reactors, Radiation protection, Reactor siting criteria, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
10 CFR Part 70
Criminal penalties, Hazardous materials transportation, Material
control and accounting, Nuclear materials, Packaging and containers,
Radiation protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Scientific equipment, Security measures, Special nuclear material.
For the reasons stated 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 National Environmental Policy Act of 1969,
as amended, and 5 U.S.C. 553, the NRC is adopting the following
amendments to 10 CFR Parts 50 and 70:
PART 50--DOMESTIC LICENSING OF PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION
FACILITIES
The authority citation for 10 CFR part 50 continues to read as
follows:
1. Authority: Secs. 102, 103, 104, 105, 161, 182, 183, 186, 189,
68 Stat. 936, 937, 938, 948, 953, 954, 955, 956, as amended, sec.
234, 83 Stat. 444, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2132, 2133, 2134, 2135,
2201, 2232, 2233, 2236, 2239, 2282); secs. 201, as amended, 202,
206, 88 Stat. 1242, as amended 1244, 1246, (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842,
5846).
Section 50.7 also issued under Pub. L. 95-601, sec. 10, 92 Stat.
2951, as amended by Pub. L. 102-486, sec. 2902, 106 Stat. 3123, (42
U.S.C. 5851). Section 50.10 also issued under secs. 101, 185, 68
Stat. 936, 955, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2131, 2235); sec. 102, Pub. L.
91-190, 83 Stat. 853 (42 U.S.C. 4332). Sections 50.13, 50.54(dd),
and 50.103 also issued under sec. 108, 68 Stat. 939, as amended (42
U.S.C. 2138). Sections 50.23, 50.35, 50.55, and 50.56 also issued
under sec. 185, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2235). Sections 50.33a,
50.55a and Appendix Q also issued under sec. 102, Pub. L. 91-190, 83
Stat. 853 (42 U.S.C. 4332). Sections 50.34 and 50.54 also issued
under sec. 204, 88 Stat. 1245 (42 U.S.C. 5844). Sections 50.58,
50.91, and 50.92 also issued under Pub. L. 97-415, 96 Stat. 2073 (42
U.S.C. 2239). Section 50.78 also issued under sec. 122, 68 Stat. 939
(42 U.S.C. 2152). Sections 50.80 and 50.81
[[Page 63130]]
also issued under sec. 184, 68 Stat. 954, as amended (42 U.S.C.
2234). Appendix F also issued under sec. 187, 68 Stat. 955 (42
U.S.C. 2237).
2. Section 50.68 is added under the center heading ``Issuance,
Limitations, and Conditions of Licenses and Construction Permits'' to
read as follows:
Sec. 50.68 Criticality accident requirements.
(a) Each holder of a construction permit or operating license for a
nuclear power reactor issued under this part or a combined license for
a nuclear power reactor issued under Part 52 of this chapter, shall
comply with either 10 CFR 70.24 of this chapter or the requirements in
paragraph (b) of this section.
(b) Each licensee shall comply with the following requirements in
lieu of maintaining a monitoring system capable of detecting a
criticality as described in 10 CFR 70.24:
(1) Plant procedures shall prohibit the handling and storage at any
one time of more fuel assemblies than have been determined to be safely
subcritical under the most adverse moderation conditions feasible by
unborated water.
(2) The estimated ratio of neutron production to neutron absorption
and leakage (k-effective) of the fresh fuel in the fresh fuel storage
racks shall be calculated assuming the racks are loaded with fuel of
the maximum fuel assembly reactivity and flooded with unborated water
and must not exceed 0.95, at a 95 percent probability, 95 percent
confidence level. This evaluation need not be performed if
administrative controls and/or design features prevent such flooding or
if fresh fuel storage racks are not used.
(3) If optimum moderation of fresh fuel in the fresh fuel storage
racks occurs when the racks are assumed to be loaded with fuel of the
maximum fuel assembly reactivity and filled with low-density
hydrogenous fluid, the k-effective corresponding to this optimum
moderation must not exceed 0.98, at a 95 percent probability, 95
percent confidence level. This evaluation need not be performed if
administrative controls and/or design features prevent such moderation
or if fresh fuel storage racks are not used.
(4) If no credit for soluble boron is taken, the k-effective of the
spent fuel storage racks loaded with fuel of the maximum fuel assembly
reactivity must not exceed 0.95, at a 95 percent probability, 95
percent confidence level, if flooded with unborated water. If credit is
taken for soluble boron, the k-effective of the spent fuel storage
racks loaded with fuel of the maximum fuel assembly reactivity must not
exceed 0.95, at a 95 percent probability, 95 percent confidence level,
if flooded with borated water, and the k-effective must remain below
1.0 (subcritical), at a 95 percent probability, 95 percent confidence
level, if flooded with unborated water.
(5) The quantity of SNM, other than nuclear fuel stored onsite, is
less than the quantity necessary for a critical mass.
(6) Radiation monitors are provided in storage and associated
handling areas when fuel is present to detect excessive radiation
levels and to initiate appropriate safety actions.
(7) The maximum nominal U-235 enrichment of the fresh fuel
assemblies is limited to five (5.0) percent by weight.
(8) The FSAR is amended no later than the next update which
Sec. 50.71(e) of this part requires, indicating that the licensee has
chosen to comply with Sec. 50.68(b).
PART 70--DOMESTIC LICENSING OF SPECIAL NUCLEAR MATERIAL
The authority citation for 10 CFR part 70 continues to read as
follows:
1. Authority: Secs. 51, 53, 161, 182, 183, 68 Stat. 929, 930,
948, 953, 954, as amended, sec. 234, 83 Stat. 444, as amended, sec.
1701, 106 Stat. 2951, 2952, 2953 (42 U.S.C. 2071, 2073, 2201, 2232,
2233, 2282, 2297f); secs. 201, as amended, 202, 204, 206, 88 Stat.
1242, as amended, 1244, 1245, 1246, (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5845,
5846).
Sections 70.1(c) and 70.20a(b) also issued under secs. 135, 141,
Pub. L. 97-425, 96 Stat. 2232, 2241 (42 U.S.C. 10155, 10161).
Section 70.7 also issued under Pub. L. 95-601, sec. 10, 92 Stat.
2951 (42 U.S.C. 5851). Section 70.21(g) also issued under sec. 122,
68 Stat. 939 (42 U.S.C. 2152). Section 70.31 also issued under sec.
57d, Pub. L. 93-377, 88 Stat. 475 (42 U.S.C. 2077). Sections 70.36
and 70.44 also issued under sec. 184, 68 Stat. 954, as amended (42
U.S.C. 2234).
Section 70.61 also issued under secs. 186, 187, 68 Stat. 955 (42
U.S.C. 2236, 2237). Section 70.62 also issued under sec. 108, 68
Stat. 939, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2138).
2. In Sec. 70.24, paragraph (d) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 70.24 Criticality accident requirements.
* * * * *
(d)(1) The requirements in paragraphs (a) through (c) of this
section do not apply to a holder of a construction permit or operating
license for a nuclear power reactor issued under part 50 of this
chapter or a combined license issued under part 52 of this chapter, if
the holder complies with the requirements of paragraph (b) of 10 CFR
50.68.
(2) An exemption from Sec. 70.24 held by a licensee who thereafter
elects to comply with requirements of paragraph (b) of 10 CFR 50.68
does not exempt that licensee from complying with any of the
requirements in Sec. 50.68, but shall be ineffective so long as the
licensee elects to comply with Sec. 50.68.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 28th day of October, 1998.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
William D. Travers,
Executive Director for Operations.
[FR Doc. 98-30253 Filed 11-10-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
