ML20155D326
| ML20155D326 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000000 |
| Issue date: | 03/22/1983 |
| From: | Scurry N OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT & BUDGET |
| To: | Scott S NRC |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20150F521 | List:
|
| References | |
| FRN-45FR20491, RULE-PR-2, RULE-PR-50 AA61-2-118, NUDOCS 8604170289 | |
| Download: ML20155D326 (2) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.
hs
'y
- e cTI('E O F-OF1 ic t c r 11': 7 c E U ';T A '; D - U UD1ET, 'L C T IC ';
o Af/-+
Por
- f (3\\
~
TO:
STEPHEN SCOTT ACTIOT DATE
' NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION W A S!!! NGTON,
D.C.,- 20555 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 03/22/83 ON 03/04/83,- YOU REQUESTED APPROVAL OF THE FOLLC'4I NG INFORF ATION COLLECTION:
TITLE: 10 CFR 50, DOMESTIC LICENSING Of PROCUCTION AND UTIIIZATION FACILITIES
. AGENCY FORM NOS.:
f IN ACCOPDANCE WIIH THE PAPERWORK REDUCTICN ACT, WE liAVE T Al(EN THE FCLLOWING
. ACTION ON *HIS INFORM ATION COLLECTION:
l APPPOVEE FOR USE THPOUGH 04/30/85. OMB NO. 3150-0011.
'THIS-NUMBEP AND EXPIP ATION DATE MUST APPEAR I N T5f E UPPER. RIGHT-HA ND CCB NER OF-Tl!E FIRST PAGE OF THE REPORT FORM OR TiiE FIPST PAGE OF THE REGULATION, MANUAL, OR OTHER DOCU MENT INCORPOPATING THE INFORM ATION COLLECTION UNLESS CTHER INSTRUCTIONS ARE IN "REMAPKS" BELOW.
EFFECT ON BUPDEN:
RESPONSES F EPO RTING HOUBS 8,507 5,927,105 PPFVIOUS STATUS NEW STATUS 9,107 5,929,505 DIFFERENCE 600 2,400
. EXPL A N ATION OF DIFFERENCE:
j ADJUSTMENTS CORRECTION-ERROR 0
0 CORRECTION-BEESTIMATE O
O CHANGE IN USE O
O PPOGRAM CHANGES INCPEASE 600 2,400
~DECPEASE O
O J
DEMARKS:
8604170289 860327 PDR PR 2 45FR20491 PDR L
(
.D.o l
'l NOTICE OF OlFICE OF --MN AGE".ENT. AN D UUDGE" ACTIOK PAGE'2'
'03B NO. 3150-0011 ABSTRACT::
i.
.UEPER~AN'NBC INTERIM FINAL PULE, " NOTICE AND ST AT E CONSULT ATICN," A LICENSEE OF A NUCLEAR = POWER PLANT lDR OT' A TESTING FACILITY WO ULD II A VE TO PROVIDE'TO THF NRC AND THE STATE IN WHICH ITS FACILITY TS ICCATED ITS AMENDMENT APPLICATION AND ITS ANALYSIS ADOUT THE ISSUE OF
'SIGNIFICANT HAZAFDS.
ALLOE ANCE LETTER: NO FUNCTION: EN EEGY INF0FMATICN, POLICY, AND REGULATION EXCEED SUDGBT: !!O 3504 (H) : N/A ON PLAN: NO
. 1-USE: PUBLIC REQUEST: REVISION NO. OF-FORMS:
PESPONDENTS: E78
. RESPONSES: 9,107 HCURS: 5,929,505 AFFECTED PUBLIC: BUSS / INST
-SMALL DUSINESS: NO ACTIVITY TYPE: 483 LPUPPOSE: REG / COMP
-FREQUENCY: OCCAS COLLECTION METHOD: MAIL.S/A RETENTION:
COLLECTION AGENT: RQSING DPT/AGCY CCNFIDENTIALITY: NO
. COMPULSORY STATUS: MANDATORY
- FEDER AL.. COST:.$300,000 PUBLIC COSI:
REVIEWER: JEFFERSON B.
HILL
. i:
ACTION
! AUT!!OR IZING OFFICIAL
! TITL E: DEPUTY A DMI NIST R ATC F ! D AT E APPROVEE BY:
!/S/NATHANIEL SCUPRY FOR! OFFICE OF INFO RM ATION
.!03/22/03
!AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS IMPORTANT: BECAUSE THIS INFORM ATION COLLECTION HAS EEEN APPROVED, PLE ASE SEND TO THE C.M.B.
AS SOON AS AV AIL A BLE: GNE COPY OF THE FINAL PRINTED (OR O7HERWISE RE PRO DU C E D) REPORT FORM, OR REPORTING OR PECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENT, TR A NSMITT AL LETTER, INSTFUCTIONS, AND ANY DOCUMENT BEING SENT TO EACH RESPONDENT.
u-
g
, - -. ~ ---
v+
rTW M 4 1983 MEMORANDUM FOR:
William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations FROM:
Guy H. Cunningham, III Executive Legal Director
SUBJECT:
REVISED REGULATIONS TO' IMPLEMENT LEGISLATION ON t
(1) TEMPORARY OPERATING LICENSING AUTHORITY AND (2) NO SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS CONSIDERATION (THE "SHOLLY AMENDMENT") - SECY-83-16 AND 83 16A The enclosed Comission paper, SECY.83-16B, responds to the Comission's questions and concerns raised at the meeting on February 22, 1983, in connection with SECY-83-16A.
t.
};.:i.O::]
d uy H. Cunningham, III
/
Executive Legal Director
Enclosures:
As stated DISTRIBUTION TFDorian GHCunningham WJ01mstead OELD R/F OELD S/F Regs R/F Central File
,1 1A l\\
OFC :0 ELD
- 0 ELD f,
- E
/__.1 :
17 (L_____:.__
NAME :TF rian:js :W
- dead nningham
_____:______....__.. __.t....
DATE:3//83
- 3//83
- 3//83 h
a a
l M04 POR TRANSCRIPT ISSUES Resolution: Statements at Commission Meeting and Changes Page in Transcript Commissioner Question in SECY-83-16A 69 Asselstine Re p. 8 of the proposed TOL rule, what We said that rule has opportunity or requirement for affidavit additional procedures are envisioned from applicant and opportunity for public to respond-- no other than formal adjudicatory ones?
further requirement. Could have public meeting..if Commission.
so chose. Left that to case-by-case resolution. See p.19.
8 Asselstine Re p.11 of proposed TOL rule, could TOL We said we will explain in statement thirty. See pp. ll-lla.
remain in effect beyond Commission's authority to issue TOL which end on December 31. 19837 9
Agearbe Same question.
Same resolution.
9 Asselstine How would TOL amendment be handled.
We said we will look into it. See lla, beyond that date?
10 Malsch What about suspensions beyond that date?
We said we have authority. Made a change. See pp. 8, lla, and 19.
11-13 Gilinsky Did not like preamble with respect to.
Received changes re pp. 3-4.
Made changes which were delays. Gave us his changes. At meeting revised by Case. Roberts disagrees with changes on p. 3 -
Ahearne agreed and Asselstine reserved which are almost all G111nsky's words.
Judgment. Roberts did not disagree.
14 Ahearne To what plant's might TOL apply?.
We said Shoreham and Perry.
m
. P ge in Resolution: Statements at Commission Meeting and Changes Transcript Commissioner Question in SECY-83-16A 14-16 Ahearne Re p.18 section (c) why is there such -
We said this means that issues have to be resolved to finality in statement that Commission Commission's satisfaction, though cannot prejudge the will not issue TOL until all significant outcome. See pp. 6 and 18.
safety issues are resolved, etc.7 How does it compare to OL7 Staff should put that phrase in or We said we will look at this and tinker w;th it. See cross-reference. Asselstine agrees, pp. 15 and 18.
Malsch asked why have standards like this in Part 2. including why have section (d). Ahearne said it could be deleted. Roberts did not disagree.
16 - 19 Malsch.
Would ifcensee with low power OL have to Malsch did not have an answer. Case thought it might apply refile for a low power TOL in order to Shoreham. Malsch thought it might apply to Diablo Canyon.
to request full power TOL7 Asselstine was unsure. We said we would think about it. See pp. 5-5a for resolution.
SHOLLY STANDARDS 20 Asselstine If none of the 3 criteria are met then it Correct.
is not a significant hazard?
q 21 Ahearne Which of the 3 criteria fit reracking? If Congress asked it be included. It was done at request of ~
f t was in Senate report does it have to be Senate Report. Malsch was unsure of the answers. We made
-in regulation?
no changes. See p.176.
Ahearne suggested that if reracking does not fit 3 criteria he would add a fourth. Case said he would add the example itsel f.
Ahearne requested that staff look at the legislative.
history. In light of this comment and Ahearn'es and Asselstine's later comments, on clarity and predictability.
NRR and DGC said examples shouldbe in rule. They now are.
- 3 Resoluti A: Statements at Commission Meeting and Changes Page in Transcript Comissioner Question in SECY-83-16A 23-31 Gilinsky What is the meaning of " involves a We said no. It involves operation of facility in accordance significant consequence of an accident with the proposed amendment. Explanation of issue in light previously evaluated". Does it involva of attempting to separate procedural issue from merits. Guy an issue which has the possibility of thought to problem, Case to issue. Guy then agrees, significantly increasing the probabG ity Gilinsky would tie it to problem. There was a long discussion or consequences of an accident presiou,1y about it and apparent agreement that Gilinsky's hypothetical evaluated ? Is language tied to issue or would be caught by one of the criteria.
to problem?
31 Roberts How many license amendments are there Said 600.
per year?
What percentage involves no significant Said high 90s. Two percent were significant.
bazards consideration?
31-37 Asselstine &
Are criteria as clear and predictable Said it depends on what do we Sholly Amendment. Some Ahearne as they can be? Why not put out criteria consideration is being given to making it interimly effective, once more as a proposed rule? Do criteria Guy and Case felt that we have been as responsive as respond to the explicit request for we can be. Asselstine and Ahearne felt we could do more.
clarity in the Conference Report?
Asselstine would republish criterica for public coment.
See Conference Committee transcript. See p. 3. et s_eg.,
now interim final rule. See pp.15,17,17a re precision.
37 Asselstine Re example 9 in likely class, does it We said it has to be likely. Usually it's a prima facie case.
mean that in "all cases" where an amendment permits a significant increase in effluents emitted by a power plant that that would be dispositive of whether i
a significant hazards consideration is involved?
't 4
Resolution: Statements at Commission Meeting and Changes P0ge in in SECV-83-16A Transcript Commissioner Question 38 Ahearne Were authors of example 9 familiar with We said yes. We were not backing away, the Commission's TMI positions?
Asselstine Did authors look at Conference Report when Yes. Discussed it with Congressional staff. Asselstine drafting example 97 would reserve on example 9.
See 19a - 196.
Ahearne Was example 9 discussed with NRR7 Yes.
41 Asselstine Can there be a' proposed amendment, which.
We said unlikely, but possible. Should not confuse this if adopted, would permit a significant with TMI example.
Increase in the amount of effluents or radiation emitted from a plant? Might that not be determined to involve no significant hazards consideration?
42-43 Ahearne Would TMI venting fit example 97 No. Asselstine said he would provide Congressional floor discussion. We agreed to go back and look, s
Now published as interim final rule. It isn't necessary 43-46 Ahearne If standards were published as a final as a matter of how to change 5 50.58 in the rule though it rule, would they be modified later with respect to procedures?
isn't ill advised. There are already many Part 2 changes floating around and these can pick up such changes.
What about i 50.58 with respect to 'such Malsch said that OGC was trying to fit examples into the 46-48 standards, and needed time for a closer look.
notice *?
1 s 's SHOLLY PROCEDURES Resolution: Statements at Commission Meeting and Changes Page in Tra2 script Commissioner Question in SECV-83-16A 48-49 Ahearne Wasn't it Commission's interpretation Yes. But legislation changed that law, under current law that it could issue an amendment if it made a.no significant hazards finding?
50 Ahearne Doesn't applicat now submit an analysis No.
about no significant hazards consideration?
52-54 Ahearne Will licensees say 98% of the time that no No; there won't be many comments on the subject, significant hazards considerations are involved and will commentors agree with that?
Is it assumed that most of the time a Only when a hearing is requested; and those instances detailed analysis and a conclusion won't would be few.
be required?
54 Ahearne Is it correct that the rule is written so
- Yes, that the State will contact NRC if it is interested?
55
!s that consistent with,Congrerence Committee Nothing said, thought staff nodded. See pp. 20 and 28b.
' Report? Should it there be one more step to make it appear that consultation rather than connent is involved.
- i Resolution: Statements at Commission Meeting and Changes Page in Transcript Commissioner Question in SECV-83-16A 56-57 Ahearne What was meant by last sentence in That NRR is not using all' the examples. Some are'new.
- 7 57 Ahearne What is the response with respect to
, We'll look at it and make it clearer. Enclosure 9 has been Comment C on p. 2 of Enclosure 97 revised.
58-59 Malsch
.Is it possible to notice all amendments.
We were trying to save time using the dual notice procedure.
but to prenotice significant hazards considerations if a hearing request is received?
59-60 Can proposed determination be avoided and -
We didn't do this because of the stringent emergency made only if a hearing request is received, criterion.