ML20023D590
| ML20023D590 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 04/22/1983 |
| From: | Palladino N NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Mitchell G HOUSE OF REP., ENVIRONMENT & PUBLIC WORKS |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20023C157 | List: |
| References | |
| RULE-PR-50 NUDOCS 8305240179 | |
| Download: ML20023D590 (2) | |
Text
. __
a nig),y p
UNITED STATES g
a g
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 74
- j WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
\\...../
CHAIRMAN April 22, 1983 The Honorable George J. Mitchell Subcommittee on Nuclear Regulation Committee on Environment and Public Works United States Senate Washington, D.C.
20510
Dear Senator Mitchell:
Thank you for your letters of March 15' and 24,1983 expressing your concern about how the Commission would treat license amendment requests regarding the reracking of' spent fuel storage pools in its interim final rule implementing the "Sho11y" provision in the Fiscal Year 1982-83 NRC Authorization Act.
You are correct in your understanding that, under the interim final rule recently issued by the Commission, it would examine case-by-case license amendment requests to rerack spent fuel storage pools and that it would make a determination about whether any given amendment poses or does not pose significant hazards consid-erations based upon the " intrinsic circumstances" of the case.
In virtually every instance, the Commission has not taken a position on whether any particular reracking involves significant hazards considerations.
Nonethe-less, it has been providing prior notice and an opportunity for a prior hearing on amendment requests involving reracking. The Commission will continue to offer prior notice of these amendment requests and, additionally, solicit public comment on its proposed determinations.
As a matter of technical judgment, it is not prepared to say that all rerackings, without exception, are or are not likely to involve significant hazards considerations. A majority of the Commis-sioners believes that each amendment request for a reracking will have to be judged with respect to its own intrinsic circumstances, using the standards in 350.92 of the interim final rule." Consequently, though the decision was a difficult one, the Commission has decided not to include reracking of spent fuel storage pools in the list of examples in the preample of the rule.
However, in view of the expressions of Congressional understanding, the Commis-sion feels that the matter deserves further study. Accordingly, the staff has been directed to prepare by August 1,1983 a report which reviews NRC experience to date with respect to spent fuel pool expansion reviews and which provides a technical judgment on the basis on which a spent fuel pool expansion amendment may or'may not pose a significant hazards consideration.
Upon receipt and review of this report, the Commission will revisit this part of the rule.
The Commission also considered your point that reracking should be put into the rule itself as one of the standards.
In order to provide the needed flexibility for the Commission's case-by-case decisions on reracking and given the Commission's technical consensus, the Commission has decided that it would not be appropriate to foreclose the question of significant hazards considerations by including re-racking (or for that matter any other specific categories of actions) within. the 9305240179 830422 PDR COMMS NRCC CORRESPONDENCE PDR
rule itself. Rather, the Commission has decided to provide generalized guidance i
for application of the rule.
The Commission believes that this action is con-sistent with overall Congressional intent with respect to the "Sholly" provision, as evidenced in the Conference Report and various floor debates expressing approval of the Commission's then-proposed standards, which have been retained in the interim final rule.
I am enclosing for your information a copy of the Federal Register _ Notice regarding the interim final rule.
I thank you for allowing me the opportunity to explain the Comission's position on this difficult matter and hope we can continue to work together to implement this important piece of legislation.
Commissioner Asselstine disagrees with the Commission majority's decision to permit the use of the "Sholly" amendment authority for license amendments for the reracking of a spent fuel pool.
He believes it is clear from the legisla-tive history of section 12 of Public Law 97-415 that the Congress did not in-tend that the authority granted by section 12 should be used to approve rerack-ing amendments prior to the completion of any requested hearing.
Commissioner Asselstine also believes that the use of the "Sholly" amendment to approve re-racking amendments before the completion of any required hearing goes far beyond the justification offered by the Commission when it requested the "Sholly" amend-ment.
Finally, Commissioner Asselstine believes that there are strong public policy reasons for continuing the Commission's past practice of completing hear-ings on reracking amendment proposals before approving the amendment..His views on each of these points are set forth in greater detail in the enclosed Federal Register Notice.
Comissioner Gilinsky agrees with Commissioner Asselstine's interpretation of the legislative history of the "Sholly" amendment.
In addition, Commissioner Gilinsky believes that the examples of amendments which do and do not involve a significant hazards consideration should have been retained in the body of the rule. Without these examples, the rule's criteria are so general that, as a practical matter, they offer little or no guidance on how to treat a request for an amendment.
Commissioner Gilinsky's separate views on these matters are part of the enclosed Federal Register Notice.
Sincerely, hh Nunzio J. Palladino
Enclosure:
Federal Register Notice e