ML103370565

Staffs Responses to Public Comment on DG-3039, Standard Format and Content for Emergency Plans for Fuel Cycle and Material Facilities

ML103370565
Person / Time
Issue date:	04/30/2011
From:	Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards
To:
O'Donnell, Edward, RES/DE/RGB 251-7455
Shared Package
ML103360486	List: ML103370565 ML103370659
References
DG-3039 RG-3.067, Rev 1
Download: ML103370565 (3)

Text

Resolution of Comments Received on Draft Regulatory Guide DG-3039, Standard Format and Content for Emergency Plans for Fuel Cycle and Material Facilities Section of DG-3039 Comment Resolution General The Regulatory Guide should reference applicable chapters of NUREG-1520, Standard Review Plan for the Review of a License Application for a Fuel Cycle Facility.

(GE Hitachi comment 1)

The staff disagrees. The guide applies to a wide range of facilities. There are several Standard Review Plans available for these facilities. The guide is intended for readers preparing an emergency plan. The SRPs are intended for readers preparing a license application. Adding numerous references throughout the guide for preparing many different license applications will not help readers prepare an emergency plan.

A.

Introduction On page 2, RIS 2005-02 is referenced for guidance on the process for making emergency plan changes; however, this RIS specifically applies to 10 CFR Part 50 facilities. Consider either of the following options for revising the guide: (1) revise the RIS to include applicable regulations and guidance for affected facilities, (2) provide specific reference applicable to RG 3.67 facilities, or (3) revise the sentence to indicate that RIS 2005-02 is for general guidance only and RG 3.67 affected facilities would not be expected to implement all of the guidance in RIS 2005-02.

(GE Hitachi comment 2)

The staff disagrees. RIS 2005-02 was addressed to both reactor and nonreactor facilities. Although most of the discussion is related to reactor sites, the concerns can be adapted and applied to any facility maintaining an emergency plan. In addition, the first page of every regulatory guide contains a statement that the guide is not a substitute for the regulations, and compliance with the guide is not required.

B. Format The new criterion for marking and control of sensitive information would require that the emergency plan be reviewed by security officials for the purpose of marking it as security-related. Should security officials determine that specific sections be withheld under 10 CFR 2.390, a general description emergency plan that is releasable to the public will need to be developed. This provision is new and not required by regulation. It adds complexity to the document configuration control and maintenance process and inhibits free flow of information to offsite response agencies; therefore, we suggest deletion of this criterion. Also, specific guidance is needed to assist licensee in determining what portions of the emergency plan are security-related information and thus must be withheld from public The staff disagrees. Guidance on withholding emergency response information has been available since 2005. The guide references RIS 2005-31 which provides guidance on information to be withheld from the public. In addition, sensitive information may be shared with parties that have a need to know. Offsite response organizations have a need to know, and should continue to have access to the emergency plan. The NRC recognizes that controlling sensitive information adds complexity to document control. Unfortunately, the complexity is necessary in the current threat environment.

Section of DG-3039 Comment Resolution disclosure.

(NEI comment 2) 1.2 It is impractical for some licensees to include a list of all hazardous chemicals used at the site. A radiochemical manufacturer may have thousands of chemicals, some used in multiple locations. A better approach would be to list only those hazardous chemicals that have quantities and locations that could significantly affect the ability to safely respond in an emergency.

(CORAR comment)

The staff agrees. It is impractical to list thousands of chemicals used in multiple locations. A listing of every small vial would not be useful for emergency situations. The following statement was added to the guide:

The list may be limited to larger quantities likely to impact emergency response efforts (i.e., bulk storage containers, etc.).

2.1 The guide references NUREG-1513 for integrated safety analysis guidance. This section should also reference NUREG-1520, which also provides guidance regarding performance of an integrated safety analysis (ISA).

(GE Hitachi Comment 3)

The staff disagrees. If a release at a site and a release a mile away are both classified the same, there is significant potential for confusion and erroneous decisions. A release on a public road differs significantly from a release in a licensed facility and it should have a different classification. Therefore, the NRC is not revising the regulatory guide as proposed by the commenter.

Licensees and applicants should rely on the regulatory guide. The NRC intends to clarify the discrepancy in NUREG-1520 highlighted by this comment.

3.1 The guide segregates emergency classifications for onsite emergencies versus those required for offsite response (i.e.,

transportation accidents). NUREG-1520, Section 8.4.3.1.4(3), states that transportation accidents within one mile of the facility should be classified under the emergency plan. The final regulatory guide should be consistent with NUREG-1520.

(GE Hitachi comment 4)

The staff disagrees. If a release at a site and a release a mile away are both classified the same, there is significant potential for confusion and erroneous decisions. The basis for the statement in NUREG-1520 is unclear, but we believe the statements added to the regulatory guide are the most appropriate. A release on a public road differs significantly from a release in a licensed facility and it should have a different classification.

5.1 A new paragraph addresses hostile action response and references IN 2009-19 which references NEI 06-04. Both the IN and NEI documents specifically apply to 10 CFR Part 50 facilities, and the guidance is not clear on what is required of non-Part 50 facilities. The final guide should clarify the intent of this guidance for non-Part 50 facilities.

(GE Hitachi comment 6)

The staff notes that IN 2009-19 was issued to both reactor and non-reactor licensees. Although the lessons learned came from reactor drills, the lessons can be used by any licensee conducting a drill involving a hostile action. The following statement was added to the final guide:

This notice discusses lessons learned during hostile action based drills at reactor sites. A non-reactor site can expect similar problems and should address these issues in its plan.

Section of DG-3039 Comment Resolution 7.3 The section states that scenarios should be developed for accidents postulated in the plan including hostile action based events. It does not clearly state the periodicity for hostile action based exercises.

(NEI comment 1)

The size of the emergency response organization and the range of accident scenarios can vary significantly between facilities. This guidance applies to a wide range of activities. A training frequency appropriate for one facility may be inappropriate for another facility. The final guide was clarified by adding the following statement:

It is expected that internal drills will be conducted more often (at least annually) than full-scale exercises. Each applicant should establish a drill frequency that will maintain proficiency in its emergency response organization.