ML20246L589
| ML20246L589 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 04/05/1989 |
| From: | Stello V NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| FRN-53FR6159, RULE-PRM-50-48 NUDOCS 8905180349 | |
| Download: ML20246L589 (10) | |
Text
_ _ _ _
p N
f I
)RM
.c u
g, L
' Copy to Secy-x\\
cnqinsI s:nt to the
{ ]i (/{f
- iC3 ci the F0deral Register W pubhCaliOG '
[7590-01
/QMQ NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Y,
[ Docket No. PRM-50-48]
Q l%T 11033 '
s
=crr::c c 4EItVitz Tni University of Missouri; Denial' of Petition for Rulemaki
~
.f;
/i,
/
g,
AGENCY:
. Nuclear Regulatory Comission.
ACTION:
Denial of petition for rulemaking.
SUMMARY
- The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is denying a petition for rulemaking (PRM-50-48) filed by Mr. William F. Reilly, Manager, Reactor Upgrade Project.and endorsed by Dr. Don M. Alger, Associate Director, Research Reactor Facility of University of Missouri. The petition is being denied because:
(1) the existing regulations are adequate te ensure protection.
~ to public health and safety in licensing test reactors and testing facilities; (2) the proposed amendments would not sufficiently protect the public health and safety; and (3) the need for the clarifications proposed is not'otherwise demonstrated by the documentation provided by the petitioner. The petition requested-that NRC amend its regulation to add a new definition for the term "research reactor" and redefirie the terms " testing facility" and " testing reactor" based on the function of the facility and its power level. The petitioner stated that the current definition of " testing facility" results in i
excessive and unnecessary regulatory requirements being applied to research reactors which are contrary to Congressional intent in the Atomic' Energy Act of
)
1954.
)
I
-)
ADDRESSES: Copies of the petition for rulemaking, the public coments received,* and the NRC's letter to the petitioner are available for public
)
inspection or copying in the NRC Public Document Room at 2120 L Street, NW, Washington, DC.
8905180349 0904055
50-48 1
C
__.______________________________d
2 Q:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark L. Au, Office of Nuclear Regulatory-1 Research, ~ U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, Telephone (301)492-3749.'.
i
- SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
-I.
The Petition II. Basis for Request III. Public Comments on'.the Petition IV. Analysis of Public Comments p
V.
Reasons for Denial The Petition In a letter dated November 19, 1987, Dr. Don M. Alger, Associate Director,'Research Reactor Facility, University of Missouri, filed with NRC a petition for rulemaking (PRM-50-48).
The petitioner requested that NRC amend its regulations to add a new definition for the term "research reactor" and redefine the term " testing facility" based on the function of the facility and its power level.
The proposed petition was published in the Federal Register on March 1, 1988 (53 FR 6159). The 60-day public coment period ended May 2, 1988.
Basis for Request f
The petitioner bases the petition on the fact that the current definition of " testing facility" in 10 CFR Part 50 results in excessive and unnecessary routine regulatory requirements being applied to research reactors which is contrary to Congressional intent in the Atomic Energy Act of 1954. The petitioner also proposes to add a definition in 10 CFR Part 50 for "research j
reactor" to be consistent with the definition used by the American Nuclear f
2 i
4 Society (ANS) and American National Standards Institute (ANSI).
The petitioner currently operates a research reactor at a maximum power level of 10 MW(t), and plans are being developed to upgrade the power to approximately 30 MW(t). This power upgrade would result in the change of the "research reactor" designation to that of a " testing facility." The petitioner contends that such a designation would place unnecessary and burdensome regulatory requirements on research reactors similar to those required of power reactors.
The petitioner believes the petition establishes a balanced regulatory program for the University of Missouri and future research reactors to ensure the public health and safety without inhibiting the conduct of vital research in the areas of medical research, radioisotope production, material research, neutron activation analysis, radiation effects, and others.
The petitioner further believes that test facilities were intended by Congress to be encompassed in Section 104c of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (construction application of testing facility). Although this section of the Act does not mention nor define " testing facility," the Commission could issue licenses to persons applying for utilization and production facilities useful in the conduct of research and development activities.
Public Comments on the Petition A notice of receipt of petition for rulemaking was published in the Federal Register on March 1, 1988 (53 FR 6159).
Interested persons were invited to submit written comments concerning the petition during the 60-day public coment period which ended May 2,1988.
Fifteen letters were received commenting on the petition.
These letters came' from universities, government agencies, industry, public interest groups, and an individual.
Eleven comments favored the petition and four opposed the petition. The significant comments supporting the petition are summarized below:
1 1.
Clarifications are necessary to specify which regulations apply to research reactors. These clarifications would eliminate the confusion associated with commingled power reactor regulations.
3
I 2.
A clear distinction among the terms "research reactor," " testing facility" and " testing reactor" should be established.
3.
The arbitrary designation for testing facility based on power level l
i threshold that has little, if any, technical basis, should be eliminated; thereby allowing certain vital research to be performed in a more expeditious manner.
The significant comments opposing the petition are summarized below.
1.
It is not prudent to ignore power level in the classification of research reactors used for research purposes from that of power reactors and testing facilities.
2.
Protection of public health and safety should be the foremost consideration when amending the regulations in 10 CFR Chapter I.
3.
Recourse to seek exemption from regulation should be on a case-by-case basis.
4 The proposed definition implies that testing would be done only at "research reactors" and prevents use of a " testing facility" for other types of work for which it may be suited.
5.
Research can be conducted adequately at present or lower power levels.
Analysis of Public Comments Two commenters made the comment that the proposed rule would clarify in the regulations where research reactor regulations apply and would eliminate confusion with power reactor regulations.
In response, the NRC staff recognizes that the regulatory requirements for test and research reactors appear throughout Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
However, upon review of any particular part or section of the regulations, it is clear what reactor types are being addressed.
This petition would change the definitions for " testing facility", " testing reactor", and "research reactor." Where these definitions appear or do not appear in the regulations would not change. Therefore, the clarity of the regulations would not be affected by the petition for rulemaking.
4
One commenter stated that the petition would establish clear distinction between terms "research reactor" and " testing facility."
In response, these terms are clearly and specifically defined in the existing. Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
To date, there have not been any instances where uncertainty about a facility has occurred. The petition, if implemented, would replace the existing definitions with no significant improvement in clarity.
Seven commenters stated that adopting this proposal would eliminate the arbitrary designation for. testing facility based on a 10 MW thermal power threshold that holds little, if any, techni' cal basis.
In response, when the current definition of testing facility was proposed in 1959, the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) adopted a definition based on the type of facility that would involve a significant hazards consideration. The Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) reviewed and agreed on this definition. These definitions are still valid and conservative when considered in light of current technology.
One commenter indicated that the petition would allow vital research to be performed in a more expeditious manner.
In response, it is true that a higher power research reactor has a higher neutron flux and the ability to conduct research that would be difficult or very time consuming at a lower power level.
However, a licensee can apply to operate a research reactor with a power level greater than 10 MW(t) if it follows the current licensing process for a testing facility.
Because the existing regulations for testing facilities and testing reactors are of greater complexity than those for research reactors, it may require a longer time to complete a testing reactor licensing action.
Nevertheless, ensuring the health and safety of the public takes preceden<e over arbitrarily relaxing licensing requirements for operation.
5
Two commenters stated that it is not prudent to ignore power level in the classification of reactors used for research purposes.
In response, the regulatory process used in any licensing action must be of sufficient detail to ensure protection of the health and safety of the public. The proposed changes in the definitions would change the existing regulatory process for reactors with power levels above 10 MW(t). The NRC staff considers the power level of the facility and postulated accidents to be important safety considerations when evaluating licensing actions on research reactors and testing facilities. The present regulatory options available to the staff for research reactors (such.s referring an application to the ACRS) will continue to exist and will be used by the staff.* warranted.
Reasons for Denial The decision to deny the petition was based on:
(1)HRCconsideringthe contents of the petition, (2) the public comments received, and (3) the current regulatory structure affecting the licensing of research reactors, testing reacturs, and testing facilities. The discussion that follows addresses the significant points in the petitioner's proposal and NRC's response to these points.
The petitioner proposed that the Commission adopt a regulation that would add a new definition for the term "research reactor" and redefine the terms
" testing facility and " testing reactor" based on the function of the facility and its power level.
Proposed New Definition:
"Research reactor" means a nuclear reactor licensed by the Commission under the authority of subsection 104c of the Act and pursuant to the provisions of 550.21(c) of this chapter for research, developmental, educational, training, or experimental purposes, and which ray nave provision for production of non-fissile radioisotopes.
6 h.
Proposed New Definition-i
" Testing facility" means a nuclear reactor of a type described in 5 50.21(c) to be use' #or testing reactor components and designs at reduced or uncerta' o sefety nargins, and for which an application has been filed for a license authorizing operation at:
(a) A thermal power level in excess of 10 megawatts; or (b) A thermal power level in excess of 1 megawatt, if the reactor is to contain:
(1) A circulating loop through the core in which the applicant proposes to conduct fuel experiments; or (ii) A liquid fuel loading; or (iii) An experimental facility in the core in excess of 16 square inches in cross-section.
The definition of research reactor appears in the existing regulations in 6170.3(h).
If a non-power reactor is not a test reactor or test facility, it is a research reactor; therefore, a need for clarification does not exist. Because of power levels and postulated accident considerations, the existing regulatory process for testing facilities and testing reactors is intended to be more comprehensive than that for research reactors.
The petitioner suggests adding to the definition for testing reactor and testing facility the function of the reactor by including the testing of reactor components and designs at reduced or uncertain safety margins. The petitioner does not provide justification as to what levels of reduction in safety margin is acceptable. The petitioner's proposal does not demonstrate why the existing regulatory process is not sufficient to protect the health and safety of the public and the environment.
In the petitioner's proposed definition, it is not clear where a research reactor (the type of reactor described in 10 CFR 170.3(h) or 10 CFR 50.21(c)).
that operates at a thermal power level of 10 megawatts or less, or that does not operate at a thermal power level in excess of 1 megawatt with a circulating loop, liquid fuel loading, or an experimental facility in the core in excess of 16 square inches in cross-section that would be used for testing 7
reactor components and designs at reduced or uncertain safety margins, would be considered under the proposed regulations. The petitioner-proposed definitions of testing facility and testing reactor involve both reactor function and power level. This is an area of uncertainty that has not been addressed by the petitioner in any of the documentation submitted.
The changes in the definition that the petitioner has proposed would result in facilities being regulated as research reactors at thermal power levels above 10 megawatts if the facility did not engage in testing reactor components and designs at reduced or uncertain safety margins.
Facilities with thermal power levels above 10 megawatts are currently regulated as testing facilities. Thus, this represents a decrease in the scope of the regulatory requirements.
The petitioner has not stated if a reactor thermal power level exists where the scope of the regulatory process should be increased. The petitioner has not provided any justification to show that reactor power level is independent of the potential hazard to the health and safety of the public and environment. Also, the petitioner does not justify the decrease in the scope of the regulatory process except to state that the current definitions are arbitrary.
In addition to reviewing the petition and comments from the public, the petition was also examined against the existing regulatory requirements affecting test reactors. These regulations are briefly listed as follows:
1.
10 CFR 50.2 defines " testing facility" as a nuclear reactor which is of a type described in 10 CFR 50.21(c) and for which an application has been filed for a license authorizing operation at:
(a) A thermal power level in excess of 10 megawatts; or (b) A thermal power level in excess of 1 megawatt, if the reactor is to contain:
(1) A circulating loop through the core in which the applicant proposes to conduct fuel experiments; or (ii) A liquid fuel loading; or (iii) An experimental facility in the core in excess of 16 square inches in cross-section.
l l
i i
8
.O 2.
10 CFR 50.21(c)-describes a requirement for a production or utilization facility for conducting research and development activities of the types specified in Section 31 of the Act, and which is not a facility of the type specified in paragraph (b) of this section or in 10 CFR 50.22.
3.
10 CFR 50.30(f) requires an environmental report to be submitted with application for testing facility construction permit or operating license.
4 10 CFR 50.58 requires ACRS review and report for testing facility construction permit or operating license.
5.
10 CFR 50.92(a) requires a construction permit for a material alteration to a licensed facility and public notice according to 10 CFR 2.105 (30 days' notice and opportunity for hearing where an amendment to a license involves a significant hazard consideration).
6.
10 CFR 140.3(k) defines " testing reactor" as a nuclear reactor of a type described in 10 CFR 50.21(c) of this chapter and for which an application has been filed for a license authorizing operation at:
(a) A thermal power level in excess of 10 megawatts; or (b) A thermal power level in excess of 1 megawatt, if the reactor is to contain:
(i) A circulating loop through the core in which the applicant proposes to conduct fuel experiments; or (ii) A liquid fuel loading; or (iii) An experimental facility in the core in excess of 16 square inches in cross-section.
7.
10 CFR 170.3(h) defines "research reactor" as a nuclear reactor licensed by the Commission under the authority of subsection 104c of the Act and pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 50.21(c) of this chapter for operation at a thermal power level of 10 megawatts or less, which is not a testing fac311ty as defined by paragraph (m) of this section.
9
8.
10 CFR 170.3(m) defines " testing facility" as a nuclear reactor licensed by the Commission under the authority of subsection 104c of the Act and q
pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 50.21(c) of this chapter for operation j
at:
{
(a) A thermal power level in excess of 10 megawatts; or (b) A thermal power level in excess of 1 megawatt, if the reactor is to contain:
(1) A circulating loop through the core in which the applicant proposes to conduct fuel experiments; or (ii) A liquid fuel loading; or
)
(iii) An experimental facility in the core in excess of 16 square inches in cross-section.
Al' the distinctions between research and test reactors cited in the above i 7.,lations have been promulgated by NRC to ensure the protection of public health and safety and the environment. These distinctions reflect the importance of reactor power level, postulated accidents, and facility function in NRC licensing decisions. The NRC, in light of this petition, has reexamined its regulations and determined that no additional action. required at thi; time.
Accordingly, the Commission determines that rulemaking is not necessary at this time.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this N day of
,1989.
V For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
CERTIFIED ATRUECOPY gy om of ID!OIS Executive Director or Operations.
0 PubicaBons Services 10
_ _ _ - _