ML19351E860
| ML19351E860 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 12/04/1980 |
| From: | Eisenhut D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Shapar H NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19351E861 | List: |
| References | |
| FRN-45FR40101, RULE-PR-50, RULE-PR-51 NUDOCS 8012190457 | |
| Download: ML19351E860 (5) | |
Text
.
(U
- SSC A
MEMORANDUM FOR: Howard K. Shapar Executive Legal Director FROM:
Darrell G. Eisenhut, Director Division of Licensing
SUBJECT:
COMMENTS ON REVISION OF 10 CFR PART 51 AND RELATED CONFORMING AMENDMENTS We have reviewed the proposed Connission Paper on revisions to Part 51 and especially the Final Rule and Preamble (Enclosure B) as requested in your memo of November 3,1980. During a subsequent meeting with Ms. Jane Mapes on November 14, 1980, we highlighted our coments and proposed changes to this document. We comend OELD on successfully incorporating the complex aspects of the CEQ regulations into the new Part 51 and concur in this document with the following considerations and/or additions.
i I
With regard to staff resource impact, you are aware of NRR's (1)- preliminary man-power and cost estimates which were forwarded on the proposed rule in October 1979 (W. H. Regan to H. K.
Shapar). We believe the changes incorporated in the final rule (including the suggested additional to the categorical exclusion items in this letter) could increase the resource impact; however, this increase is expected to be within the margin of error of the previous estimates.
j (2) The revised regulations declare that any amendment to delete water quality limits and monitoring requirements from NRC licenses is to be treated as a categorical exclusion for which no e'nvironmental impact statement or enviromental assessment will be prepared (Number 17, p.113).
We are in agreement, and in fact, reconnended this addition.
However, it is states that the basis for this exclusion is that " license amendments of this type... do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human enviroment..."
This v}
f
,1 I/pli Y
g0121,90'/67 oFF ce p.._......
su m.< >.
m.d..
bc Fonu n2 en-7n nacw c24o tu.s.covenumeur eRINT'NG OFFICE: 1979-289-369
~
- }D
- }D 7'} [
D o
Ju 1
]
c oJu a
E^* 0.; 1980 Howard K. Shapar statement is not defensible since no review was conducted to support such a conclusion.
In fact, we fomerly conducted environmental appraisals precisely because of out awareness of the potential for significant effects.
Deletion of water quality requirements should rather be presented as a ministerial action required as a matter of law. The basis for this exclusion should, therefore, be modified to indicate that it is a legal requirement and not one for which a generic environmental assessment has been prepared. We suggest that last paragraph in Category of Actions, item 17, p.113 be modified to read: The Concission finds that license amendments of this type (Category 17) comprise a category of actions which do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the htsnan environment; because these impacts have been addressed under the appropriate provisions of the FWPCA. Accordingly, the Commission designates, Category 17 as a categorical exclusion, and directs that Category 17 be listed in i 51.22(c) as a categorical exclusion.
(3) In regard to the Environmental Protection Plan (50.36b).
Page 4 of the Coenission Paper states that the new 50.36b codifies existing licensing practice. The concept of an environmental protection plan does not currently exist in all reactor licenses. The current requirements range from no requirements to extensive.
This raises several points:
The rule, as proposed, would become effective 75 days after publication. This provides insufficient time to effectively promulgate to licensees and process license amendments which probably would incorporate Epyironmental Protection Plans (see Attachment I). This would mean that either licensee's would be in violation of the rule, or it could mean that we could be santioning that current requirements are valid environmental protection plans.
We recossend that a Grand-Fathering clause be explicitly incorporated in 50.36b to cover those reactor facilities which were licensed prior to the issuance of NEPA on January 1, 1970. Additionally, we recommend that the Commission Paper or preamble (pg. 38) be amended to reflect that a staff information paper is being prepared which will set forth the practice for proposed require-ments for implementing this Environmental Protection Plan.
.~.
O FFICE SURNAME.
DATEk NOC FORM 318 (9-76) NRCM 0240 DU.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1979-249 369
D"*}D D 9~}.
.S_1 w w Ju o
.:s Howard K. Shapar CEC 0 41980 Additionally, the tern Environmental Protection Plan should be changed to Non-radiological Environmental Protection Plan.
If as stated in page 36 we intend to categorically
' exclude PWPCA matteFs~ from iny~ NEPA process 7this sficuld ~~~~
~ ~ -
~also be' made cTsaFifi'iO.36bT (4) Under the notice of intent 5 51.27(a)(2) we suggest that this read, " Describe the proposed action and possible alternatives" as specified in the Regulations for implementing NEPA 51508.22(a).
(5) With regard to 151.20 (a) and (b) for actions requiring an environmental impact _statamentmitJs not clear how the staff should respond to a licensee action, which could involve environ-mental impact _but_wouldSt _be_ considered, for_ action _lii_the.
~
Comission,ifor which no licensee submittal was made (e.g., no unreviewed sifet~yTusition waldatarmineditechnical_speciff-.
l cation change wa.= required). We recomend that this issue be raised in the Connissiin~ Paper, ifTpprdidate, andWidance requested.
(6)
Item I 51.22(c)(9) under categorical exclusions uses the term "significant hazards consideration." If this is defined pursuant to the Act it should be "no significant hazards consideration" -
(see 50.41 and PRM 50-17). If not, different words should be chosen. Additionally, this is a new factor related to environ-mental considerations. This could result in having to cerfonn an environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement when no environmental impact is involved.
l Secondly, under 51.22(c){9), this categorical exclusion is much more restrictive than current practice, thus it would result in
, many more environmental assessments (currently environmental impactappraisals). For example, changes to limiting conditions for operation, up or down, are not excluded (viz., the rajority I
of all reloads involving) license amendmentsswould require an environmental assessment. This concern is bbyiated in part l
I if reactors are included as a fuel cycle plant under 51.22(c)(9).
It is recomended that this section be modified to exclude "which changes a requirement with respect to installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area, as defined in Part 20 of this chapter, or which changes an._
s inspection or surveillance requirement,
..."! Without this change, an estimate should be made of additionil' stiff
~
resources needed to assure that the impact has been properly considered and that adequate staff resources are available.
OFFICE h.
SURNAME.
DATE k.
.{.
7 NRC FORM 318 (; N
.dC*
i'U.S. Gov ERPvMCN T PRINTING OFFICE: 1979 289 369
~_. __._ __ _
Howard K. Shapar ggc c; ;S80 1
(7) There does not appear to be any requirements for sutaittal of Environmental Reports for Part 50 license amendments in Part 51 or in 50.30(f). This will be needed to perform Environnental Assessment or Impact Statements, when required, for amendments.
(8)
In regard to 51.22(c)(l'8), tnis excliiiiin aopears unduly restrictive
~
and is confusing, i.e., this wouldiaifit requife~d in~ environmental ~~~~~ ~'
~
~~
~
assessment or environmental impact statement to allow restart following the shutdown orders related to the seismic design error and the B&W reactor shutdown following the TMI-2 accident.
Clarification will be needed to assure that startups, which are dependent on license changes, are not included by this section.
It is our understanding that additional changes to this document are being considered based on input from FESS, 50. IE, and RSR.
If substantive changes are implemented, which could impact on NRR, please advise.
. Original signed bz Darrell G. Eisenhut, Director Division of Licensing
Contact:
P. Grant, X28924
Attachment:
As stated cc w/ attachment:
H. Denton R. Vollmer D. Ross S. Hanauer F. Schroeder B. Snyder B. Grimes R. Purple G. Cunningham J. Mapes G. Lainas Y
P. Grant f
J. 01shinski
./
d/.
R. Reid 9 Al
)d $ 8. f R. Ballard J. Hayes i' y' [
?
g,f're DL OkMI DL:0RAB f-g*tppo ck -PGrant:sah JDonch
/ "/80 H/M/
OmCE)
D,E :
/,BC.
0
/SA,,,
DIR DL'.
C
..G(... M.
.W.urple.
nnut.
suRNauE)
DATE>.
..I.I.U-?/80
,[, /,,1 f 80
,f/,/Qf78,0
,N/,,j/,80
,/2/,W,80....h/3/1 8
N7.C FORM 318 (9-76) NRCM 0244 DU.S. GOVT {RNMENT PR6NTING OFFICE: 1979-289-369
1 I
i i
Centr.al Files w/ incoming letter D
'd ' 9 '. Ic g m wv. wa.
Local FDR NRR Reading ORAB Reading ECase HDenton PPAS DEisenhut BGrimes SHanauer 5
I
~
n Dross ga FSchroeder
- .4 RBallard D'
NJ 3
~
.SG.
RReid w
RPurple ca 5lM RTedesco
.o Glainas y
THovak J01shinski
'~
l JHeltemes, AE0D PGrant JDonohew KWichman GHolahan SCavanaugh (NRR-4422)
EHughes DNottingham (NRR-4422) l OFFICE h su o ~, >,.
O.T e >'.
3 NIC FORM 314 (1.
.a c,
U.S. GOVE ANMfNT PRINTING OFFICE: 1979-289 369
_ ~ _,
f ATTACHMENT 1 l
I TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. OPR-72 CRYSTAL RIVER UNIT 3 FLORIDA POWER CORPORATION 00CKET NO. 50-302 l-O ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PLAN (NON-RADIOLOGICAL) l I
OCTOBER 1980 l
DUPLICATE DOCUMENT Entire document previously l
entered into system under:
l Ano B@/ / / 9684 i
/[
No. of pages:
__