ML20210L415
| ML20210L415 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 08/04/1999 |
| From: | Wen P NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | Carpenter C NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| References | |
| PROJECT-689 NUDOCS 9908090120 | |
| Download: ML20210L415 (10) | |
Text
d pn CE20 p
'4 UNITED STATES j
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20066-4001
+9 * * * * *,o August 4, 1999 l
l MEMORANDUM TO: Cynthia A. Carpenter, Chief-Generic Issues, Environmental, Financial and Rulemaking Branch Division of Regulatory improvement Programs l
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation FROM:
Peter C. Wen, Project Manager keb C. M Generic Issues, Environmental, Financial and Rulemaking Branch Division of Regulatory improvement Programs Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
SUBJECT:
SUMMARY
OF JULY 23,1999, MEETING WITH MEMBERS OF THE NUCLEAR ENERGY INSTITUTE RELATED TO THEIR PETITION FOR
{
RULEMAKING ON SAMAS On July 23,1999, a public meeting was held at the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) offices in Rockville, Marylard, between members of the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) and NRC staff. Attachment 1 lists attendees at the meeting.
On July 13,1999, NEl submitted a petition for rulemaking for the Commission to delete the requirements to consider Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives (SAMAs)in the NRC's i
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review assocind with the renewal of a nuclear plant i
operating license. During the meeting, NEl described its petition and provided the rationale for its position. The NEl presentation materialis contained in Attachment 2.
j Dackorou_nd:
On June 5,1996, the Commission published a final rule (61 FR 28467) amending its environmental protection regulations in 10 CFR Part 51 to improve the efficiency of the process of environmental review for applicants seeking to renew a nuclear power plant operating license for up to an additional 20 years. The Part 51 rule is a companion to Part 54 dealing with the application for license renewal and consideration of the appropriate safety issues with reliance, in part, on the current licensing basis and existing programs.
The 1996 rule considered environmental impacts that are germane for license renewal. It codified the conclusions of a companion Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS)
(NUREG-1437), which provided the technical basis and rationale for addressing the (almost)
/
100 potential environmental impacts related to license renewal. Also, the rule establishes two I
categories of impacts, Category 1 and Category 2.
g(0 The NRC concluded that severe accident consequences and risk analyzed in the GEIS is adequate and additional plant-specific analysis of these impacts are not required.
Consequently, this portion of severe accident consideration was categorized as a Category 1.
ml,y((.
L 9908090120 990004 PDR REVOP ERGNUMRC PDR
C. Carpenter 2
August 4, 1999 However, SAMAs were categorized as being Category 2 as long as there was no previous consideration in another licensing action (i.e., Limerick, Comanche Peak, and Watts Bar).
Additionally, because the ongoing regulatory program related to severe accident mitigation (i.e.,
' Individual Plant Examination (IPE) to look for plant vulnerabilities to intemally initiated events and IPE for extemally initiated events (IPEEE)) had not been completed at the time of the rule for all plants and consideration of SAMAs has not been included in an EIS related to plant operations for all plants, the NRC concluded that SAMAs are required on a site-specific basis unless previously considered.
The Commission indicated that, upon completion of its IPEllPEEE program, it may review the issue of severe accident mitigation for license renewal and consider recategorizing SAMA as a i
Category 1 issue.
The staff concluded that regulatory programs have progressed to the point that NRC could consider whether SAMAs can be treated generically. The staff has initiated an activity to determine whether SAMAs could meet the three criteria required for Category 1 categorization in their entirety, or in part, and if so, to establish the technical bases on which the conclusions would be founded.
On May 12,1999, the staff briefed the License Renewal Steering Committee of its plans and was made aware of an initiative by the NEl that it intended to submit a petition for rulemaking.
Overview of the Petition Process:
David Meyer of the NRC Office of Administration presented an overview of the NRC's general
, handling of petitions. The preliminary processing and threshold determination were explained.
Further, he explained the concept of " fast-track" processing and the staff's role in determining the petition's eligibility for such processing. If the staff determines that the petition may be fast-tracked, the NRC publishes the action as a proposed rule for comment without publishing a notice of receipt and request for public comment.
If the petition does not meet " fast-track" criteria, the staff publishes a notice of receipt and provides a 75-day public comment period on the petition.- Following the public comment period, the staff may recommend the denial of the petition or acceptance in whole or part along with publication of a proposed rule for comment. After consideration of the public comments on the proposed rule, the NRC then publishes the final rule.
Qgagriotion of the Petition:
The NEl petition would delete the requirement to consider SAMAs in the NRC's NEPA review I
for license renewal.
i NEl believes such an action would achieve consistency between Part 54 and Part 51 analyses and would eliminate an unnecessary burden on NRC staff and licensees that does not provide a commens' rate safety benefit. NEl builds its petition on legal bases. NEl claims that severe u
accidents have been determined to be " highly unlikely" and that there is no Part 50 regulatory requirement'related to severe accidents. Another key part of NEl's argument is that Part 54 defines the proposed Federal action, and does not include re-evaluation of the design basis.
J
.__. 1 m
C. Carpenter
-3 August 4,1999 NEl also proposed a 7-month schedule for the rule. They first requested that NRC issue a notice of receipt of petition with a 30-day comment period, as opposed to the 75-day period.
They next called for the issuance of a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 60 days later. This notice would have a 60-day comment period. Lastly, NRC would issue a final rule 60 days later.
The staff indicated it would review the petition and all of the related requests.
Attachments: As stated cc w/atts: See next page 1
l C. Carpenter
-3 August 4, 1999 NEl also proposed a 7-month schedule for the rule. They first requested that NRC issue a notice of receipt of petition with a 30-day comment period, as opposed to the 75-day period They next called for the issuance of a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 60 days later. This notice would have a 60-day comment period. Lastly, NRC would issue a final rule 60 days later.
The staff indicated it would review the petition and all of the related requests.
- Attachments: As stated cc w/atts: See next page i
1 D_lSTRIBUTION: See attached page Document Name: g:\\rgeb\\pxw\\msum0723.wpd
/
I S,C[Gjb OFFICE PM:RGEB: DRIP RGEJJ SC:RGEB NAME PWen:sw pcv/
BFli:kr MMajg [ksbwicz DATE 8/gt /99 8 / 2,- /99 8[tj /99
[l-f /99 8
OFFICIAL OFFICE COPY i
I
T t
l i
NRC/NEl MEETING ON PETITION FOR SAMA RULEMAKING LIST OF ATTENDEES July 23,1999 NAME ORGANIZATION Scott Newberry NRR/ DRIP Cindi Carpenter NRR/ DRIP /RGEB Barry Zaleman NRR/ DRIP /RGEB Frank Akstulewicz NRR/ DRIP /RGEB Melinda Malloy NRR/ DRIP /RGEB Brian Richter NRR/ DRIP /RGEB Peter Wen NRR/ DRIP /RGEB Steve Hoffman NRR/ DRIP /RLSB Rich Barrett NRR/DSSA/SPSB Janice Moore OGC Geary Mizuno OGC/Rulemaking & Fuel Cycle Sid Feld RES/REAHFB John Ridgely RES/SPSB David Meyer ADM/ Rules & Directives Branch Doug Walters NEl Bob Bishop NEl Ellen Ginsberg NEl David Lewin Shaw Pittman Donald Ferraro Winston & Strawn Jim Fulford NUS Alice Carson Bechtel Power Corp.
l l
1
Petition for Rulemaking to Delete 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(L)
NEI/NRC Meeting July 23,1999 I
Overview of Petition for Rulemaking on SAMAs
= Objectives and Desired Results
= Legal Bases for Petition
= Policy Considerations a Reconunendations 1
\\
l Petition for Rulemaking on SAMAs
= Objective
. To delete the requirement to consider SAMAs in the NEPA review for license renewal l
Desired Results
. Achieve consistency between Part 54 and Part 51 analyses
. Eliminate unnecessary burden on NRC staff and licensees without a commensurate safety,
1 benefit g'E I Legal Bases for the Petition
= Scope of Part 54 is management of aging
= NEPA analysis is bounded by Part 54
= Holding ofLimerick should be confined to its facts a Severe accidents have been determined to be " highly unlikely"
. There is no Part 50 regulatory requirement related to severe accidents i
2
Scope of License Renewal
= Current licensing basis continues into the renewal term
= Current licensing basis is to be maintained in the renewal term
= License renewal review evaluates effects of aging that are not currently managed NEPA Requirements a Informed decisionmaking; NEPA cannot establish substantive technical requirements a Requires a "hard look" at environmental consequences flowing from proposed federal action
= Inform public of the decisionmaking process l
1 3
NEPA Analysis is Bounded by Scope of Pad 54
= Government held to " rule of reason" standard for EIS sufficiency
= Part 54 defines proposed federal action; does not include re-evaluation of design basis
" Rule of reason" does not require
=
consideration of accidents " highly unlikely to occur" QEI Limerick Decision
= NRC could not eliminate SAMAs as part ofits NEPA review for an initial operating license on the basis of a fmding in a Policy Statement that the adequate protection test under the Atomic Energy Act satisfied the NEPA requirement 4
e
)
Policy Considerations e Appropriate focus of Part 54 and Part 51
= Imposition of burden without safety benefit Efficiency derived from generic resolution through rulemaking Expedited rulemaking schedule could
=
positively affect development and review of future license renewal applications Recommendations e Issue Notice of Receipt of Petition
= 30 days comment period on petition and NRC evaluates petition in parallel
= 60 days later, issue a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking a Conunents on NPR due 60 days later
= Final rule issued 60 days later yI 5
l o
l O
e
- e l
Nuclear Energy Institute Project No. 689 cc:
Mr. Ralph Bcedle Ms. Lynnette Hendricks, Director Senior Vice President Plant Support and Chief Nuclear Officer Nuclear Energy Institute Nuclear Energy Institute Suite 400 Suite 400 1776 i Street, NW 1776 i Street, NW Washington, DC 20006-3708 Washington, DC 20006-3708 Mr. Alex Marion, Director Mr. Charles B. Brinkman, Director Programs Washington Operations j
Nuclear Energy institute ABB-Combustion Engineering, Inc.
i Suite 400 12300 Twinbrook Parkway, Suite 330 1776 l Street, NW Rockville, Maryland 20852 Washington, DC 20006-3708 1
I Mr. David Modeen, Director Engineering Nuclear Energy Institute Suite 400 1776 i Street, NW Washington, DC 20006-3708 i
Mr. Anthony Pietrangelo, Director Licensing 4
Nuclear Energy Institute Suite 400 1776 i Street, NW i
Washington, DC 20006-3708 Mr. Nicholas J. Liparulo, Manager Nuclear Safety and Regulatory Activities Nuclear and Advanced Technology Division Westinghouse Electric Corporation P.O. Box 355 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15230 Mr. Jim Davis, Director Operations Nuclear Energy Institute Suite 400 1776 i Street, NW Washington, DC 20006-3708 r
l i
Distribution: Mtg. Summary w/ NEl Re Petition for SAMA Rulemaking Dated August 4,1999 Hard Cooy m pg#
PUBLIC t -
PGEB R/F OGC ACRS PWen JBirmingham BRichter EMail SCollins/RZimmerman BSheron
-l WKane DMatthews/SNewberry CCarpenter FAkstulewicz M Malloy BZaleman J Moore GMizuno SFeld J Ridgely R Barrett S Hoffman D Meyer GTracey, EDO -
i