ML20155C169
| ML20155C169 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000000 |
| Issue date: | 03/30/1983 |
| From: | Palladino N NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Ahearne, Gilinsky, Roberts NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20150F521 | List:
|
| References | |
| FRN-45FR20491, RULE-PR-2, RULE-PR-50 AA61-2-108, NUDOCS 8604160469 | |
| Download: ML20155C169 (6) | |
Text
L
' m N4/4 PDR
]pys-n.
g UNITE] STATES
[
,, (
g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3'
qt WASHINO70N, D. C. 20688
$of./
A March 30, 1983 g_
cumuunan hl!$b
/l hwu r
MEMORANDUM FOR:
Commissioner Gilinsky i '.,
/
Commissioner Ahearne
. Commissioner Roberts Commissioner Asselstine FROM:
Nunzio J. Palladino
SUBJECT:
SECY-83-16B:
MARCH 29 VERSION I propose the following approach:
1.
Reracking:
Insert Attachment A of this memo on Page 23 of a.
the OGC March 29 version in place of the two paragraphs on Page 23 and the first paragraph on Page 24 under "Reracking of Spent Fuel Pools."
b.
Delete 92.105(a)(4)(iii) on Page 34 of the OGC March 29 version.
2.
Other points:
The underscored words on Page 26 appear to be a.
inconsistent with Senator Simpson's comment on Page 25.
I would end the sentence on Page 26 at the semicolon.
I would also add, "in that it is likely to meet the 50.92 (d) criteria" to the end of the following sentence, b.
I am concerned that the last sentence of the first full paragraph on Page 27 could cause the examples to be something more than guidance.
See my suggested fix attached.
c.
On Page 30, examples (iv) and (v), what is intended by the words " essentially self-evident?"
Could the word ", justified" be substituted for
" essentially self-evident?"
d.
Paragraph (b) on Page 38 presents the same question for me as the underscored words on Page 26 (see "a" above).
I would prefer to end the sentence immediately af ter the parenthetical ph ra s e.
cc:/W. Dircks DLLI OGC B604160469 860327 PDR PR 2 45FR20491 PDR
f~
~
Attachment A Reracking of Spent Fuel Pools The Commission has been providing prior notice and opportunity for prior hearing on requests for amendments involving raracking of spent fuel pools.
The Commission is not prepared to say that a reracking of a spent fuel storage pool will necessarily involve a significant hazards consideration.
Nevertheless, as shown by the legislative history of P.L.97-415, Section 12a, the Congress was aware of the Commission's practice, and. statements were made by members of both Houses, prior to passage of P.L.97-415, that these members thought the practice would be continued.
The report on the Senate side has been quoted above; the discussion in the House is found at 127 Cong. Record H 8156, Nov. 5, 1981.
The Commission is not including reracking in the list of examples that will be considered likely to involve a significant hazard consideration because a significant hazards consideration finding is a technical matter which has been assigned to the NRC.
However, in view of the expressions of Congressional understanding, the Commission feels that the natter 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.
During the interim, the Commission will make a finding on the no-significant-hazards-consideration question for each reracking application, on a case-by-case basis, giving full consideration to the technical circumstances of the case, It is not using the standards in 150.92(d) of the rule.
the intent of the Commission to make a no significant hazards consideration finding for reracking based on unproven technology.
However, where reracking technology has been well developed and demonstrated and where the NRC determines on a technical basis that reracking involves no significant hazards, NRC should not be precluded from If the Commission determines that making such a finding.
a particular reracking involves significant hazards considerations, it will provide an opportunity for a prior hearing, as explained in the separate FEDERAL REGISTER Notice.
I o
y.
2 Additionally, it should be noted that under section 134 of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, an interested party may request a " hybrid" hearing rather than a formal adjudicatory hearing in connection with reracking, and may The participate in such a hearing, if one is held.
Commission will publish in the near future a FEDERAL REGISTER notice describing this type of hearing with respect to expansions of spent fuel storage capacity and other matters concerning spent fuel.
e e
e 9
4 4
9 e
O I
__.7- -.
m
-- A t ta chiff6t n
/-
add new examples, in keeping with the standards in i 50.92 of the interim final rule -- and, if necessary, it will tighten the standards themselves.
The Comission has left the proposed rule intact to the extent th'at the rule states standards with respect to the meaning of "no significant hazards The standards in the interim final rule (new-i-50,92(e))
consideration."
are substantially identical to those in the proposed rule, though the atte language in new { 50.92 as well as in 5 50.58 has b'een revised (1) t the detemination easier to use and understand.i-(2)-to-4neerporate-t (f e rme rly-i n-th e-p re ambl e-o f-t he-p re pe s e d-rwie)- 4 n and-(b)(2 -in-orde r-to-better-earry-out-the-intent-of-the-legislatte an d-te-e n s u r e - s e n s 4 s ten cy-b e twe e n - th e-i n t e r im-f i n To supplement the standards that are being incorporated into the Co L/L4 (5 nctance e<rsbe<hevfw tao,fs.umcd regulations gtne examples will be.M:v;:m:d{tnse the procedures Office of Nucicar Reactor Regulation, a copy of which will be placed in .Cocmission's public Document Room. EXAMPLES OF AMENDMENTS THAT ARE CONSIDERE SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS CONSIDERATIONS ARE _ LISTED Unless the specific circumstances of a license amendment request, wheti reasured acainst the standards in 9 50.92, lead to a contrary conclusion, then, pursuant to the _ procedures in i 50.91, a proposed amendment to an operating license fc.r a facility licensed under 6 5 or 6 60.22 or for a te_ sting facility will likely be found to involve e t Y 1 1 ! I I $*
- t l'
k! UNITED STATES f NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Q j WASHINGTON, C. C. 20655 = e March 30, 1983 4 CHAIRMAN MEMORA'NDUM FOR: Commissioner Gilinsky Commissioner Ahearne Commissioner Roberts Commissioner Asselstine FROM: Nunzio J. Palladino
SUBJECT:
SECY-83-16B: MARCH 29 VERSION I propose the following approach: 1. Reracking: a. Insert Attachment A of this memo on Page 23 of the OGC March 29 version in place of the two paragraphs on Page 23 and the first paragraph on Page 24 under "Reracking of Spent Fuel Pools." b. Delete 92.105(a)(4)(iii) on Page 34 of the OGC March 29 version. 2. Other points: a. The underscored words on Page 26 appear to be inconsistent with Senator Simpson's comment on Page 25. I would end the sentence on Page 26 at the semicolon. I would also add, "in that it is likely to meet the 50.92 (d) criteria" to the end of the following sentence, b. I am concerned that the last sentence of the first full paragraph on Page 27 could cause the examples to be something more than guidance. See my suggested fix attached. c. On Page 30, examples (iv) and (v), what is intended by the words " essentially self-evident?" l Could the word " justified" be substituted for " essentially self-evident?" d. Paragraph (b) on Page 38 presents the same question for me as the underscored words on Page 26 (see "a" above). I would prefer to end the sentence immediately after the parenthetical phrase. cc: W. Dircks l SECY tV5 W i
7 ' g- .g_ y t.. add new examples, in keeping with the standards in 5 50.92 of the interia. final rule -- and, if necessary, it will tighten the standards themselves. The Connission has left the proposed rule intact to the extent th'at the rule states standards with respect to the meaning of "no significant hazards Thestandardsintheinterimfinalrule(new-i-50,93(e)) consideration." are substantially identical to those in the proposed rule, though the attendant languageinnewi50.92aswellasini50.58hasbeenrevised(1)tomake the determination' easier to use and understand.,-(2)-to-4neerporate-the-enem (formerly-4n-the-preamble-of-the-proposed-evie)-4nte-the-evie-(1-50,9 and-(b)(3))-4n-order-to-better-earry-est-the-4ntent-of-the-legisla44 ens-(3 and-to-ensure-consistenay-between-the-4nterim-f4nal-evie-and-the-proposed-e 4 upplement the standards that are be%g incorpqrated into in To gnc%cr todwd&*11 tM CwC s regulations,4theexampleswillbel=::]nnginastheproceduresofthe (_ Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, a copy of which will be placed in the. Comnission's Public Document Room. IXAMPLES OF AMENDMENTS THAT ARE CONSIDERED LIKE SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS CONSIDERATIONS ARE LISTED BELO Unless the specific circumstances of a license amendment request, when measured reainst the standards in 150.92, lead to a contrary conclusion, then, pursuant to the procedures in 150.91, a proposed amendment to an operatino license for a facility licensed under i 50.21(b)_ or i 50.22 or for a testing facility will likely be found to involve _ o I l t oq I
- e b{ l,J l **
- Q
,}}