ML20196B723
| ML20196B723 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 11/18/1998 |
| From: | Shirley Ann Jackson, The Chairman NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Hoyle J NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20196B718 | List: |
| References | |
| SECY-98-257-C, NUDOCS 9812010168 | |
| Download: ML20196B723 (12) | |
Text
..
A F F I R M A T I O N VOTE l
RESPONSE SHEET i
i TO:
John C. Hoyle, Secretary FROM:
CHAIRMAN JACKSON
SUBJECT:
SECY-98-257 - FINAL RULE, PART 2, SUBPART M "PUBLIC NOTIFICATION, AVAILABILITY OF DOCUMENTS AND RECORDS, HEARING REQUESTS AND PROCEDURES FOR HEARINGS ON LICENSE TRANSFER APPLICATIONS" w/ comments & edits l
Approved x
Disapproved Abstain Not Participating COMMENTS:
SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS AND EDITS
/
SIGNATdRE
/
November 18,19Q DATE I
e Entered on "AS" Yes XX No l
24
- d20;ogpe, g3 CORRESPONDENCE PDR
CHAIRMAN JACKSON'S COMMENTS ON SECY-98-257 I approve publication in the Federal Register of the final rule,10 C.F.R. Part 2, Subpart M, governing hearing requests and procedures for hearings on license transfer applicaUons. This new rule that features a more efficient license transfer hearing process, which is flexible in scope, that provides public access to relevant documents, and ensures the rights of all parties to assert their views, should benefit the applicants, all affected parties in the hearings, and the Commission in developing a quality and timely record on the issues for ' Commission decision making. In my view, the rule is an important milestone in positioning the agency for the anticipated high rate of requests for license transfers in this era of electric industry restructuring and in the agency's overall regulatory effectiveness improvements. Thus, I agsin commend the
{
Office of the General Counsel forits role in developing this thoughtful and significant fina! rule after considering all public comments.
)
i l
7 c
m.
l
[
8 i decision, that cannot be resolved with sufficient accuracy except in a formal hearing." See s2.1322(d). The rule thus provides sufficient flexibility to cope with extraordinary or unusual cases. For typical cases, however, a* streamlined >hea'in'g'p'rdc'ess"yrovidingiastertfecision-r Imaking without lossef qualityis a desirable objective.;The shortened filing times and other 4
provisions to which OCRE objects are steps which make this streamlining possible. They are not selective attempts to burden intervenors. The Commission believes that all parties to asu elicense' transfer application proceeding will benefit from the use of:.the Subpart M procedures,. /
Comment 3.
Mr. David Leonardi, a licensed reactor operator, submitted a two-part comment
" directed more to what is missing in the proposed rule rather than to what it contains." First, Mr.
Leonardi quest;oned the Commission's statement in the notice of proposed rulemaking that license transfers in general "do not involve... significant changes in personnel of consequence to the continued reasonable assurance of public health and safety." Mr. Leonardi called this "a dangerous assumption" and expressed his view that "significant losses of critical personnel must be anticipated and factored into the transfer decision." HYsliggested that:the propos,ed q
- rutefmust require the applicant to submit:a'critica' l. staff.:reiention plan.h..
Second, with regard to the placement in the Public Document Room of documents pertaining to each license transfer application. S2.1303, Mr. Leonardi commented that he finds the Public Document Room difficult to use. He indicated his pTefe'rence forda.separatepeg on'Eie"RRC'WetFsitelorteach'pr_oposed licen'se~tisiisfbTshiisallTel5vTdi~ documents anEt Dspondence mayte accessed.h Commission response. Mr. L~eonardils~c6Fr~e^ctithatifrasignificantiossrand:replacementgfg eritical; plant personnel can be' anticipated.ns the; result ofgi particular license transferithis p)ight g
s
,well;be:ateason notWapprov6.th'e~ transfer or to cdhdition.;the1.tr1.nsfer<on:the;rn,aintenancejof g
e 17 Commission response. For reasons discussed elsewhere in this notice,ttnelCommiss.lonis:r making 7hisTule'effecij7e'U~poiijiublicatiori, pursuant to the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act for immediate effectiveness. S U.S.C. 9553(d)(1) and $553(d)(3). rAnym applicaggJgs;{ecekegbut,ryot yet noticedes'of;the^ effective:date of this rule willbe'sub[dEt t' c o
iSubpWt M'pio'ce~ dure,s. In the case of license transfer applications, if any, that have been noticed and for which proceedings are pending as of the date of this notice of final rulemaking, affected applicants or parties to such proceedings who wish to avail themselves of the new procedures m"affilsidotions with the Presiding Officer in those proceedingsfrhqife' sting'thqt q
,l Subpgfdp,rocedures be applied as" appropriate ~to the remainder of the pending proceeding. 3 Comment 10. Morgan, Lewis, & Bockius, a private law firm commenting on behalf of Alliant Utilities-lES Utilities and STP Nuclear Operating Company, endorsed the comments of NEl (see Comment 5, suora) in support of the rule. The commenter also made several suggestions for changes.
Commission response. The changes suggested by this commenter are similar to EJggestions made in other comments described and responded to in the preceding discussion.
Comment 11. Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge ("Shaw Pittman"), a private law firm commenting on behalf of itse!f and several utilities, strongly supported the proposed rule. Shaw
[ Pittman elieved, however, that several aspects of the rule require " clarification and refinement." These aspects, together with the Commission's response, are as follows:
(1) Shaw Pittman' expressed concem "that the rule does not identify the circumstances that would permit the NRC Staff to delay the approval or denial of a license transfer request pending any requested hearing." The commenter noted that proposed $2.1316(a) says that during the
4 19 in making a decision based on the record produced in a Subpart M proceeding, the Commission will of course tab proper account of the evidentiary value of the record material.
' Written statements of position and oral arguments will be treated as such statements and arguments are treated in the NRC's formal adjudications under Subpart G and informal proceedings under Subpart L, Le. as arguments and positions of the parties but not as facts.
Factua1 assertions unsupported by affidavits, expert testim.ony, or other appropriate evidentiary subtaissions are less likely to carry weight than assertions with proper evidentiary suppon.
(3) Shilw Pittm'ah Orged th'e~C6irfrif5155ioTth7e@hTproposed' rule to eipYe'ssl9 Ilow parties
-to submit proposed questions to.the Presiding ~ Officer.within seven' days of the filing of rebuttal "iditir6o~np The commenter noted that under the proposed rule, rebuttal testimony and proposed questions.fonthe Presiding officer.to ask witnesses in the Presiding Officer's
'-exa'mination"afe'tdbFfildd'at thsifrieTme. See 92.1321(b) and @2.1322(a)(2). Thus there~
j
'no explicit provision fof pidposirig questions directed to the rebuttal'testimoriy itselflalthough the Presiding Officerhas the discretion to provide for such questions. The commenter t
'ved that the timeframe of the rule would reasonably allow for this additional filing without extending the date for commencement of the oral hearing bayonJ 65 days after the date of the Commission's notice granting a hearing.
Commission response. The Commission finds-the commenter's point well-taken and hase,
- piaced language. in,theiinal.rute:ted0th6rize)?6f>~o'siidi;TJesti6nTdirsct6d to (db0ttal testimony
-to'be filedWtHin seven days ~o'f'th7fifiIif6f'tlie'Tdb"uttilTe~ stir ~n~oh'9m (4) Shaw Pittman finds confusing the language of proposed 10 C.F.R. 92.1323(a) that "[a]Il direct testimonyin an oral hearing shall be filed no later than 15 days before the hearing...."
The commenter believes this language "could arguably be read to allow the filing of direct
J c
22 Comment 15. Wisconsin Electric Power Company supported the Commission's proposed rule and suggested certain " clarifications and refinements."
Commission response. The co menter's suggestions do not differ in substance from m
suggestions made by other Commenters that the Commission has responded to above.
Other Comments Members of the NRC staff in Office of Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards submitted a comment asking that it be made clear that the proposed Subpart M applies to license transf.ers,1 undert10.C.F.RrPart 72 and that applications for transfers'under Pa'rtj2Te"n~otih7/i3Yiie' u
F 9 ederal Register pursuant-to 52.1301(b).
Commission response. The proposed = rules:were' intended to apply to alllicense transfdr gapplications, including those filed under Part 72. To make this clear, the Commission has
'iRetuded explicit references to Part 72 in'tflisGtstbnient'of corisideration for the final rule. The Commission has also modified 92.1301(b) to list transfer' applications under Part.72 as'one of-se
-the class of applications that'will be noticed in the Federal Register.m 111. Description of Final Rule The procedures adopted in this rulemaking cover any direct or indirect license transfer for which NRC approvalis required pursuant to the regulatory provisions under which the license was issued. NRC regulations and the Atomic Energy Act require approval of any
[ transfer of controlof a license. See AEA, Sec.184.j 42 U.S.C. 2234. This includes th' se o
transfers that require license amendments and those that do not. It should be recognized that not alllicense transfers will require license amendments. For example, the total acquisition of a
. _.. _.. _ _ _. -. ~..- -
36 Administrative practice and procedure, Environmental impact statement, N'uclear materials, Nuclear power plants and reactors, Reporting and record keeping requirements.
9 l
l.
For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974', as amended, and 5 U.S.C.
552 and 553, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is adopting the following amendments to 10 k C.F.R. Pa 2 and 5,11 PART 2 - RULES OF PRACTICE FOR DOMESTIC 1.tCENSING PROCEEDINGS
- 1. The authority citation for Part 2 is revised to read as follows:
Authority; secs. 161,181,68 Stat. 948, 953, as amended (42 U.S.C. 22o1, 2231); sec. 191, as amended, Pub. L.87-615,76 Stat. 409 (42 U.S.C. 2241); sec. 201,88 Stat.
1242, as amended (42 U.S.C. 5841); 5 U.S.C. 552.
Section 2.101 also issued under secs. 53, 62, 63, 81,103,104,105, 68 Stat. 930, 932, 933, 935, 936, 937, 938, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2073, 2092, 2093, 2111, 2133, 2134,2135); sec.114 (f); Pub. L.97-425, 96 Stat. 2213, as amended (42 U.S.C.10143 (f)); sec.102, Pub. L 91-190,83 Stat. 853, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4332); sec. 301,88 Stat.1248 (42 U.S.C. 5871). Section 2.102, 2.103, 2.104,2.105,.2.721 also issued under secs.102,103,104,105,183i 189,68 Stat. 936, 937, 938, 954, 955, as amended (42 U.S.C. -2132, 2133, 2134, 2135, 2233, 2239). Section 2.105 also issued under Pub. L.97-415,96 Stat. 2073 (42 U.S.C. 2239). Sections 2.200-2.206 also issued under secs. 161 b,.1, o,182,186,234,68 Stat. 948 951,955,83 Stat. 444, as amended (42 U.S.C.
2201 (b), (i), (o), 2236,2282); sec. 206, 88 Stat 1246 (42 U.S.C. 5846). Sections 2.205 i
(j) also issued under Pub. L 101-410,104 Stat. 90, as amended by section 3100 (s),
Pub. L.104-134,110 Stat.1321-373 (28 U.S.C.2461 note). Section 2.600-2.606 also issued under sec.102, Pub. L.91-190,83 Stat. 853, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4332).
Section 2.700a,2.719 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 554. Sections 2.754,2.760,2.770, 2.780 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 557. Section 2.764 also issued under secs. 135,141, Pub. L 97-425,96 Stat. 2232,2241 (42 U.S.C.10155,10161). Section 2.790 also issued under sec.103,68 Stat. 936, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2133) and 5 U.S.C. 552.
Sections 2.800 and 2.808 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 553, Section 2.809 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 553, and sec. 29, Pub. L.85-256,71 Stat. 579, as amended (42 U.S.C.
2039) Subpart K also issued under sec.189, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2239); sec.134, Pub. L 97-425,96 Stat. 2230 (42 U.S.C.10154). Subpart L also issued under sec.189, I
_g f
_p,_
__,-_..g..
9, -..-
,,-.vs_-
,, MG
37 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2239). Subpart M also issued under sec.184 (42 U.S.C. 2234) and sec.189, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2239). Appendix A also issued under sec. 6, Pub.
L.91-560,84 Stat.1473 (42 U.S.C. 205).
- 2. In 92.101 paragraph (a)(1)is revised to read as follows:
92.101 Filling of application.
(a)(1) An application for a license, a license transfer, or an amendment to a license shall be filed with the Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation or Director of the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, as prescribed by the applicable provisions of this chapter. A prospective applicant may confer informally with the staff prior to the filing of an application.
- 3. in 92:1103:after.the: final's~ehtshee'the'following sentence is' adde'd: i This Subpart shall not' apply to proceedings on applications for trsnsfer of a license.
i g ssue,d,under,Part.72. Subpart M applies'to license transfer pr.oceedings,.
- 4. In 2.1201' paragraph (a)(1) is revised to read as foilows:
$2.1201 Scope of subpart.
(a) * *
- j (1) The grant, renewal or licensee-initiated amendment of a materials license
/
subject to parts 30,32 through 35 39,40, or 70 of this chapter, with the exception of y
a license amendment related to an application to transfer a license; or is
The Honorable Dan Schaefer, Chairman Subcommittee on Energy and Power Committee on Commerce United States House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515 Dear Mr. Chairman; b.The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission intends to publish the enclosed final amendments to
(-the Commission's rules in 10 C.F.R. Part 2 and Part 51 regarding Procedures Applicable to
' Public Notification, Availability of Documents and Records, Hearing Requests and Procedures i
for Hearings on License Transfer Applications. The amendments are intended to streamline the hearing process for NRC approval of license transfers by establishing informal procedures together with schedular milestones. These are expected to result in the issuance of a final Commission decision on a routine license transfer within about six to eight months of the notice of receipt of the application.
QThe Commission has determined that this rule should become immediately effective upon publication.
Sincerely, Dennis K. Rathbun, Director Office of Congressional Affairs
Enclosure:
Federal Register Notice cc: Representative Ralph Hall 1
i w
=
~.
n h
The Honorable James M. Ihhofe, Chairman Subcommittee on Clean Air, Wetlands, Private Property and Nuclear Safety Committee on Environment and Public Works United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Mr. Chairman:
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission intends to publish the enclosed final amendments to the Commission's rules in 10 C.F.R. Part 2 and Part 51 regarding Procedures Applicable to Public Notification, Availability of Documents and Records,' Hearing Requests and Procedures J
for Hearings on License Transfer Applications. The amendments are intended to streamline the hearing process for NRC approval of license transfers by establishing informal procedures together with schedular milestones. These are expected to result in the issuance of a final Commission decision on a routine license transfer within about six to eight months of the notice l
of receipt of the application.
The Commission has determined that this rule should become immediately effective upon publication.
Sincerely, Dennis K. Rathbun, Director Office of Congressional Affairs
Enclosure:
Federai Register Notice cc: Senator Bob Graham
.~.
a N
The Honorable A1 Gore t}ri
~'
- 4 j
President of the Uriited States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Mr. President:
Pursuant to Subtitle E of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996,5 U.S.C. 801, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission is submitting final amendrnents to the Commission's rules in 10 C.F.R. Part 2 and Part 51 regarding Procedures Applicable to Public Notification, Availability of Documents and Records, Hearing Requests and Procedures for Hearings on License Transfer Applications. The amendments are intended to streamline the hearing process for NRC approval of license transfers by establishing informal procedures together with schedular milestones. These are expected to result in the issuance of a final Commission decision on a routine license transfer within about six to eight months of the notice of receipt of the application.
The Commission has determined that this rule is not a " major rule" as defined in 5 U.S.C.
804(2). We have confirmed this determination with the Office of Management and Budget.
Enclosed is a copy of the Final Rule that is being transmitted to the Office of the Federal Register for publication. The Regulatory Flexibility Certification is included in the final rule. The Commission has determined that this rule should become immediately effective upon publication.
Sincerely, Dennis K. Rathbun, Director Office of Congressional Affairs
Enclosure:
Final Rule l
l l
~
_ = -.. - -.
4,
All parties will have the opportunity to presenLora-1:
A estimony, There will b no-discovery ^ process by which the parties e
seek information from each other, but-a-hearihg-docket must be available in the NRC Public Document Room l
containing all relevant documents and correspondence.
The criteria for granting hearing requests are unchanged.
But, ds::an altdinative i orfiling"an':t t
v.. t.-in ervention' petition, interested per...-...,. sons may'.submip
.. - - - -. - - -... ~
written comments"on"~a proposed license transfer,- which t
4 st.he ; commis siontwills co.n.s.._ider.
i s
\\
The NRC published a proposed rule on this subject for comment in. September.
It developed the fi al rule after hte ma dh analyzing 16 xomments received, vi-rt"=1 y 211 of.which were
[
favorable.
l M
. :