ML20148E110
| ML20148E110 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 02/25/1988 |
| From: | Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| To: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| References | |
| FRN-53FR6159, RULE-PRM-50-48 PRM-50-48, NUDOCS 8803240462 | |
| Download: ML20148E110 (8) | |
Text
l "o o c. -
DOCKET NUMBER N '
PETITK)N RULE PRM 43 4 f s .
[ 5.3 F A 6 / 5 7 ) -. 00CKET 0
[759@8T
'88 FG 29 P4 :06 NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0lti!SSION O m CL :; .;.. :s -
10 CFR Part 50 00CKCimr, , it mr f.
Siit ' 9 )
. University of Missouri; Filing of Pe.tition for Rulemaking
[ Docket No. PRM-50-48) l l
l AGENCY:
Nuclear Regulatory Comission.
ACTION:
Notice of receipt of petition fcr rulemaking.
SUP94ARY:
The Nuclear Regulatory Comission is publishing for pubite coment this notice of receipt of a petition for rulemaking. The petition, filed by the University of Missouri and dated November 19, 1987, was docketed by the Comission on November 25, 1987, and assigned Docket No. PRM-50-48. The petitioner requests that the Comission adopt a regulation that would add a definition for the term "research reactor" and redefine the ters "testing facility" based on the function of the facility instead of its power level.
DATE: Submit comments by May 2, 1988 . Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but assurance of consideration cannot be given except as to cossents received on or before this date.
x-ADDRESSES: .Sutait coseents to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555, Attention: Docketing'iMi Service Branch. ' _.
f
[ D5//)\'. " " "
ji$
+ /kLY ,$. I lu <l2 f. . ? W W b ,
.:# gwn, Y
J ' -
A ,,:ce! 'bB53Y4b462880225
~
- "".* * * ~ * ' * * + -
~ . ~ '
'9 M PDR ' a pwd.if,Um r, ^ " s:/;!i w. ~
f
.a iff" . s. S0-48
~ _ - - - _ _ _ _ _ .
w __
2 For a copy nf the petition write: Division of Rules and Records, Office of Administration and Resources Management, MNBB-4000, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555.
Inspect and copy the petition or coments received on the petition at the NRC Public Document Room, 1717 H Street, NW., Washington, DC.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David L. Meyer, Chief, Rules and Procedures Branch, Division of Rules and Records, Office of Administration and Resources Management, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Washington, DC 20555, Telephone: (301) 492-7086 or Toll Free (800) 368-5542.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Grounds for the Petition The petitioner states 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 the intent of Congress in the Atomic Energy Act of 1954. The petitioner also proposes to add a new definition in 10 CFR Part 50 for "research reactor" to be consistent with the definition used by the American Nuclear Society and American National Standard Institute (ANSI).
% 4 "47
- *^ f. pv 4.-
p m( ,
', $'h * ' ' y
- l. l _
- " Y f& Y A '. iW 4 s-ung;5hrY WS ?*'s _
y 9ll L- =
- : _ - _ ._ J _ _ _
- : wty
t 3-Patitioner's Proposal
- 1. Define "research reactor" in 10 CFR 50.2 as follows:
"Research reactor" means a nuclear reactor which is of a type described in 50.21(c) of this part and for which an application has been filed for a license authorizing operation for research, developmental, educational, training, or experimental purposes, and which may have provisions for the production of non-fissile radioisotopes.
- 2. Redefine "testing facility" in 10 CFR 50.2 as follows (proposed change underlined)
"Testing facility" means a nuclear reactor which is of a type described in
$50.21(c) of this part to be used for testing reactor components and designs at reduced or uncertain safety margins, and for which an application has been filed for a license authorizing operation at:
(1) A thermal power level in excess of 10 megawatts; or (2) 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 l
proposes to conduct fuel experiments; or (ii); A liquid fuel loading; or i
(iii) An experimental facility in the core in excess of 16 square inches in cross-section. . . .
~. . .
d .
3, W
b % =hYY,~p %
'~ '
, , , , . p. ,4 - y *
. r-e -yg, ., my**., . ; ;,
hk+ "-
%W?"R . ., ,,
[. 4%Q .
%@f3,;.,le};g
4
- 3. Redefine ' testing reactor" in 10 CFR 140.3(k) as follows (proposed change underlined):
"Testing reactor" means a nuclear reactor which is of a type described in l50.21(c) of this chapter to be used for testing re6ctor components and designs at reduced or uncertain safety margins, and for which an application has been filed for a license authorizing operation at:
(1) A thermal power level in excess of 10 megawatts; or (2) 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.
- 4. Redefine "research reactor" in 10 CFR 170.3(h) as follows (proposed change underlined):
"Research reactor" means a nuclear reactor licensed by the Coamission under the authority of subsection 104c of the Act and pursuant to the provisions of $50.21(c) of this chapter for research, developmental, educational, training, or experimental purposes, and which may have provisions for'the production of non-fissile radioisotopes.
.s 7' j.,
e'vN . ww- . , -' s Mr?'r w ,
w*% .
% ) , e#
g?%h F*
. 4 . -
.g wM* .. , _ ej, n , + .
~
- lMt dirl+ '[hh###~ , .
- s q tAveW*ib 4*E f b ,.
~
<:. h 6 A {'
n, a ,, m a . .
r+ixe w' c . . . , . .mwu%,. .
$7.W
" ~
- y;wYk ,
'* 5
,. .% . + - _ ,2, .
-s-i
- 5. Redefine "testing f acility" in 10 CFR 170.3(m) as follows (proposed changes underlined):
"Testing facility" means a nuclear reactor licensed by the Comission under the authority of subsection 104c of the Act and pursuant to the provisions of 50.21(c) of this chapter to be used for testing reactor components and designs at reduced or uncertain safety margins, and for operation at:
(1) A thermal power level in excess of 10 megawatts; or (2) 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.
Petitioner's Interest This petition is being submitted by the University of Missouri, holder of Facility License R-103 for operation of the University of Missouri Research Reactor (MURR). MURR currently operates as a research reactor at a maximum power leveltof 10 W. The petitioner states that plans are being developed to upgrade the power:te approximately 30 W and that the upgrade will make MUftR
- .an.ena.nore efficient' and effective;research tool, but it will not change
'the' purpose of the facility.. mm
- m. .,.. ..
or and atia m
?,
rmI. ,'.,.,'4N*
% "-Y '! .
- h ,
, ,, um 4 . _, . , . ~ _ _ ,,. m .f . . .
^*
~ J %ky .
The petitioner is concerned that current Federal regulations would cause MURR to be designated as a testing facility instead of a research reactor as a result of the power level exceeding 10 W. The petitioner states that this designation would place unnecessary and burdensome regulatory requirements (many of which have been developed for large power reactors) on MURR.
The petitioner states that the purpose of this petition is to establish a balanced regulatory program for MURR and future large research reactors to ensure the public health and safety without inhibiting the con'uct of vital research, in the areas of medical research, radioisotope production, materials y
The research, neutron activation analysis, radiation effects, and others.
l petitioner points out that diagnosis and treatment of cancer and development of isproved magnetic and superconductive materials are two examples of important areas of research that will be better served by more powerful research reactors.
- kr Statement in Support The petitioner asserts that the current definition of ' testing facility
- is arbitrarg,as the current definition was issued as part of a rule change in 1960 and the es3 1 pplanation provided was 'ttiat the definition was an impleibtation ofhtomic Energy Act, Seclions Ib and 189a. The petitlener al' kosmission's regulat6ns, as well as Sections 182b and lateA,.of
' m M s -2 s the Ateertthtaergy Actuprovide no justification for the designation of a powsp'
_ . :Y ' ,g level...othat 41.stinguishes a research reactor (up to and i$luding 10W) from
., 4
! test reacter,(above 10 m ).
%, N rame v .4 l , , , .
The petitioner states further that a review of the Comission's files (1954-1961) on Part 50 indicates the Atomic Energy Comission (AEC) staff conferred with the Advisory Comittee of Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) to develop the definition and that this definition was provided to the Joint Comittee on Atomic Energy (JCAE). The petitioner asserts that no explanation was offered by the AEC or the JCAE for the 10 W distinction between research and test reactors.
The petitioner further asserts that there is no evidence of a rationale for what seems to be an arbitrary power level of 10 W used to define "testing facility." The petitioner states the Congress, in using the term testing facility in the Atomic Energy Act, intended that reactors wculd be used to test concepts and components in the early development of nuclear power technology. The petitioner believes the term connotes a facility that is pushing the limits of reactor technology and that may be performing work with lower or not well-defined safety margins.
The petitioner believes the definition has become anachronistic when applied to reactors whose purpose is to produce neutrons for research and development, as distinguished from performing a testing function. The petitioner believes retention of the current definition may raise undue concerns by the public and imposes unnecessary burdens and costs in the regulation of research reactors.- ,
i
! < Conclusion ~
# 4 - .s .
/.
The petitioner rtates that a research reactor that now is in the category e
l of a "testing facility," e.g. a 10.1 W research. reactor, currently comes under
+ < - - - -
,g,, .
.NM3Q hg. MF -
s '+ $
N. ,DA %++9E g y "M4*%)ngg g t ~
i
! .e},, WyAy.9 - -w f n sgMfd
i l
many provisions of the Code of Federal Regulations that pertain to large comercial power plants. The petitioner contends that by imposing these requirements on research and development facilities, the current Code of Federal Regulations is actually contrary to the intent of the Congress.
The petitioner points out that Section 104c of the Atomic Energy Act stipulates the Comission's obligation to impose only the minimum amount of regulation for research and development activities.
The petitioner believes that to implement the intent of Congress, the redefinition of a research reactor based on function instead of power level and consequent relegation to a reasonable level of routine regulatory scrutiny is proper and appropriate. The petitioner states that this .
. .m .
petition does not reduce the authority or responsibility of the Comission to ensure the health and safety of the public. The petitioner believes that unique research reactors can still be subjected to the necessary degree of scrutiny as detiermined by the Comission.
Dated at Washington, DC this N day of February,1988.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Comission.
/ -
1 f
Q,. A (
~
bs ,
Yamuel J. Chill, Secreta'ry of the Consmission.
_ x
- YS T
, f .
.