ML20056B531
| ML20056B531 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 08/22/1990 |
| From: | Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| FRN-55FR29043, RULE-PR-2, RULE-PR-50, RULE-PR-54 PR-900822, NUDOCS 9008290216 | |
| Download: ML20056B531 (6) | |
Text
.,, -
DOCKET NUMBER
' PROPOSED RULE Eb d,50 +64 (55FR M04.5 )=
C0CKETED USNRC (7590-01)
NUC?AAR REGULATORY COMMISSION R 22 P3 :07 10 CM Pap.r: 2, 50, and 54 c rrg. y 9,g.;.e udCK!' V;_,
i.,yg.;.
7'IN. 315 0-AD0 4 WP' Nuclear 1% der Plant License Renewalt Denial of Requesta to Extend Comment Period AGENCY Nuclear.tegulatory Ccamission, i
-f
' ACTION:
Proposed rule:
Denial of requests to extend comment period.
SUMMARY
On July 17, 1990 (55 FR 29043) the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)' published for public comment a proposed rule that would establish the requirements that an applicant for renewal ~ of a nuclear power plant-operating license must meet, the information that must be submitted to the NRC for review so that the agency can determine whether those requirements have in fact been met, and the application procedures.
The expiration of the comment period was set'at October 15, 1990.
Three prospective commenters have requested an extension of_the comment period by sixty days or more.
Thn NRC has-set iAe ninety-day comment-period (rather than a shorter period) 1.n recognition of the importance and nature
- of'this rulemaking and considers the ninety days allowed to be sufficient.
In view of the desirability of developing the final 1
9008290216 900022 PDR PR 2 55FR29043 PDR DS)D
\\
2 rule as soon as practicable, the requests to extend the comment
= period are denied.
l DATEst
-The comment period expires October 15, 1990.
Comments-received after this date.will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the Commission is able to assure consideration only p
for comments. received on or before this date.
l n
ADDRESSES:
l Comments may be sent to the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington,-DC 20555, Attention Docketing and service Branch, or may be hand-delivered to One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, L
Rockville, ND 20852,- between 7:30 an and 4:15 pm Federal workdays.- Copies of comments received may be examined at the Commissione s Public Document Room at 2120 L Street, N.W.
(Lower-Level), Washington, DC, between the hours of 7:45 am and 4:15'pm Federal workdays.
- FOR FURTHER= INFORMATION CONTACT George Sege, Office of Nuclear
- Regulatory Research, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, Telephonet (301) 492-3917.
SUPPLEMENTARY'INFORMATION:
Two organisations, Ohio Citizens for Responsible Energy (OCRE) and the Unionlof Concerned scientists (UCS) (through Harmon, curran & Tousley), requested a 2
J 4
l H
D sixty-day extension.-
A third organization, Nuclear Information and Resource service (NIRS), requested'an extension of "at least-60 days."
These prospective commenters adduce three main arguments for extension. 'First, they argue'that the rule is i
complex and relies on extensive supporting information, requiring l
substantial effort and' time for study, consideration, and discussions in the preparation of comments.
Ucs refers,'igtgg alia, to " complex analyses of aging reactors" and to the j
commission having "taken years to develop its license renewal l
proposal."
second, they argue that the'importance of the rulemaking warrants i
allowance of substantial time for public input.
UCS-asserts that "this rulemaking'will affect the level of safety of currently operating plants for the next sixty years."
OCRE argues that,
"[g)iven the importance of this matter, publicicomment should be encouraged and accommodated to the maximum extent possible."
Third,'NIRS argues that, since licenses wonet expire for at least another ten years, there i;s.not a sitfficiently urgent need.for the rule to make a sixty-day extension unreasonable.
The NRC has considered the issues raised by the prospective commenters..
It'was precisely the nature of the license renewal issue and the volume of the supporting analyses for the proposed 1
3
.: s
'X' w
f rule that, together with the importance of this rulemaking, led I
the Commission to allow ninety days, rather than a shorter o
period, for public comments.
The NRC considers ninety days to be adequate.
It should be noted that the preparation of'the
~
proposed rule has proceeded in full public view, with substantial prior opportunities for public input concerning the issues i
involved.
These earlier opportunities included,Lin 1986, a request for comments on license renewal policy development (51 FR
-40334: November 6, 1986).
(The extended comment period closed on February 2, 1987.
Summary and analysis of comments in SECY 179, issued July 21, 1987.)
They also included, in 1988, an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (53 FR *1919; August 29, 1988), by which the NRC solicited comments on the issues discussed in NUREG-1317, " Regulatory Options for Nuclear
-Slant License Renewal."- (NUREG/CR-5332 presents a summary and analysis of the comments received.)
Also in 1988, in an action that was not part of the rulemaking process but relevant as background, the NRC, in cooperation with four professional societies, sponsored an International Nuclear Power Plant Aging Symposium.
(Proceedings published as NUREG/CP-0100 in March 1989.)
on November'13 and 14, 1989 the NRC held a public workshop addressing significant technical and policy issues in license renewal.
The Federal Register notice announcing the workshop (54 FR 41980; October 13, 1989) included a " Preliminary Regulatory 4
1 4
1
_,.L
..[?
..ac
'Philosopny and Approach for License Renewal Regulation" and an
- " outline-of a Conceptual Approach to a License Renewal Rule.H written comments on the questions posed, the statement of regulatory philosophy, and the conceptual rule outline were i
accepted by the agency up to December 1, 1989.
(Proceedings, including a report on associated written comments, publishe6 as
'NUREG/CP-0108 in April 1990).
1 u
In determining to proceed with this rulemaking at.this time the-Commission considered the utilities' need for sufficient time to plan.
Utilities have contended that they will require ten to fifteen years to plan and build replacement. power plants if the operating licenses for existing nuclear power plants are not renewed.
They have also contended that-the NRC's technical requirements for license renewal must tHe established'before utilities can reasonably determine whether renewal of their a
L
- existing operating licenses is economically and technically i
' justified.
It is in view of these considerations that the p-t l-
.c.,
r L
L L
u L
5 t
e
p v
,1.
1 Commission believes that the ninety days al' lowed to comment on the -
I proposed elle is sufficient and the requests to extend the comment period are der.ied.
Dated at.Rockville, Mary)and, this N d day of-August, 1990.
r the Nuclhar Regulatory Commission ch%
R.ie 1
Samuel J. Ch'in ~
SecretaryofktheCommission s
1 3
1 t.
\\ > - -
I.
~
L t.
t.
l:
L l
l 1.
6
.