ML19246B120
| ML19246B120 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 05/07/1979 |
| From: | Dircks W NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19246B121 | List: |
| References | |
| SECY-79-278A, NUDOCS 7907120422 | |
| Download: ML19246B120 (3) | |
Text
-
~__. _. _ _
~L
'JNIT ED STATES q, 7,1979 S CY-79-278A a
NUCLEAR R EOU LATO RY COMMisalON INFORMATION REPORT For:
The Commissioners o
Frcm:
William J. Dircks, Director Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards O ^
Th ru :
Executive Director for Ocerations
Subject:
PHYSICAL PROTECTION OF IRRADIATED FUEL SHIPMENTS Purcose:
To provide the Ccmission with supplemental inforration concerning SECY-79-278.*
Discussion:
Ir inclosure G to SECY-79-278, OSD stated that the proposed requirements should be implemented by order or license condition rather than by the rulemaking process.
A discussion of these two methods follows:
Imolementation by Rulemaking Rulemaking is the course normally folicwed wnen a proposed action has generic applicability.
This method has the advantage of (i) permitting public
~
participation to the widest extent possible in the proceeding, (ii) avoiding duplicative litigation of the same issue in several licensing proceedings, 3nd (iii) effectinc widesoread dissemination of relevant information thru established channels, i.e., the Federal Register and Code of Federal Regulations.
In addition, ruiemaking is generally regarded as more suitable for raising and deciding questions of policy.
g The action being proposed by the staff is generic in nature since it would apply across the industry to all licensees who engage in transport of irradiated reac;or fuel.
Implementation by rulemaking would assure that the benefits described in (i) thru (iii) abcve are realized.
Con:ac::
D. J. <asun, N"SS 22-74C1:
'SECY NCTE:
SECY-79-27S is :: ce scheduiec f:r a Ccmission crie#ing 3 42 "c / 2
'~
'~
712 0., V ? 2 790
- Discussion:
In regard to public participation, even though contact (continued) has been made with carriers, licensees and their repre-sentatives, and other government agencies, the public at large has not had an opportunity to review and comment on this matter.
However, publishing the rule
.9 effective form with a concurrent ccmment period may result in limited public participation.
On the other hand it can be argued that since these are interim requirements, codificittien should be delayed until the confirmatory research has been completed and a final detennination made.
This argement is based on the percepticn that it would be easier to rescind an order than delete requirements frcm a published rule if the research should show that physical protection was in fact not necessary.
Implementation by Order Modifyinc a License Modifying a license in accordance with the provisions of 10 CFR 2.204 is the process normally employed when (i) the action applies to one or only a limited number of licensees and principally involves factual issues, (ii) the matter requires timely implementation to protect public health or safety (the time required to draft a rule and to obtain Connission approval of a rule may be too long), or (iii) the modification is transitory in nature.
It can be argued that the proposed action meets (ii) and (iii) and that there are precedcats for issuing generic amendments to licenses.
(For example, ganeric license conditions were issued in 1976 and 1977 in re-
.t gard to the physical protection of Category I nuclear materials in transit.)
In this instance a main objection to the order procedure is the absence of a clear delegation of staff authority in this area. NRR authority, as specified in NRC Manual Chapter 0123-032a, is limited to transportation activities within the site boundary.
NMSS authority, as contained in the June 16, 1976, Delegation of Authority, does not appear to extend to "utili::ation facilities."
The Director, NMS$ therefore, may not have the authority to amend a Part 50 pcwer reactor operating license under which spent fuel activities at ocerating reactors are currently covered.
Because of the lack of clear authcrity ir. NMSS, tne staff celieves tnat an orcer wcuid recuire the Cccmissicn either to specifically delegate authority to NMSS in regarc to spent fuel outside tne site bouncary or to issue
...e order itself.
342 273
- Discue..on:
Another objection to the use of orders in this case is (continued) the administrative burden that would be involved in amending aoproximately 160 reactor and import licenses.
Inasmuch as each licensee must be given an opportunity to demand a hea-ing with respect to the order and with the added possibility of intervention, the probability exists that considerable starf effort may have to be expended in response to such hearings.
Coordination:
The Office of the Executive Legal Director has no legal objection to this paper.
/
0/ %
William J. Dircks, Director Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards EDO NOTE: The attached memos from IE & NRR amolify/ modify their previous contents on this paper.
They are attached as Enclosures 1 and 2.
342 274
_ _ _.