ML20216A937
| ML20216A937 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/19/1998 |
| From: | Dicus G NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Hoyle J NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20216A925 | List: |
| References | |
| FRN-63FR26955 AF32-2-024, AF32-2-23, AF32-2-24, SECY-98-024-C, SECY-98-24-C, NUDOCS 9804130331 | |
| Download: ML20216A937 (2) | |
Text
-
A F F l R M A T I O N VOTE RESPONSE SHEET TO: John C. Hoyle, Secretary FROM: COMMISSIONER DICUS l
SUBJECT:
SECY-98-024 - FINAL AMENDMENTS TO 10 CFR PARTS 60, l 72,73,74, AND 75," PHYSICAL PROTECTION FOR SPENT NUCLEAR . UEL AND HIGH-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE" Approved x Disapproved Abstain Not Participating. Request Discussion COMMENTS: See attached.
1 k 7 L' i tLKh
$NAT@FJ __
Release Vote / / W arell /9
/97J' DATE Withhold Vote / /
Entered on "AS" Yes x No 9804130331 980403 PDR CoMMS NRCC I,, CORRESPONDENCE PDR
Csmments of Commissioner Dicus on SECY-98-024 I approve the notice of final rulemaking for publication in the Federal Register subject to the following changes.
In a number of places throughout the final rulemaking package, it is stated that this final l rule will codify standards for protecting spent fuel at the various storage facilities i licensed under Part 72. This and similar statements are made in the Federal Register Notice, the Final Regulatory Analysis, the Congressional letters, and in other places.
Although this statement is true, it fails to mention protecting high-level radioactive waste and it fails to mention protecting materials licensed under Part 60. The statements should be modified to include these things. )
i Also, I believe that the language in Section 73.51(d) is confusing and should be revised. j Section 73.51 contains requirements for the physical protection of stored spent fuel and '
high-level radioactive waste. Section 73.51(b) states the general objective then goes on to list five oerformance caoabilities that need to be met in order to fulfill this objective. Section 73.51(d) describes methods for meeting the performance capabilities. However, this section contains languaga that I believe is confusing and -
sends mixed signals. It starts out like a Reg guide by stating the following; "The following systems, subsystems, components and procedures are methods acceptable to NRC for meeting the performance capabilities...". This implies that there are other methods that the NRC may find to be acceptable. The Section goes on to list very prescriptive methods that the licensee must follow. The use of the word "must" throughout this section implies that these are " required" methods, and that no other methods would be found acceptable. Although there may be several ways to solve the inconsistency within Section 73.51(d), I offer the following. The beginning of Section 73.51(d) should be revised to state that, "The following systems, subsystems, components and procedures are methods that must { emphasis added} be used to meet the performance capabilities of Section 73.51(b)(2)." This revised introductory sentence would be consistent with the prescriptive language that follows describing the various methods. To address the concem of one of the commenters on the proposed rule who expressed support for the rule's performance-based nature but4 ejected the set of provisions in Section 73.51(d) as being overly prescriptive, a new section could be added to Part 73, similar to the one in 10 CFR 61.58 entitled, " Alternative requirements for waste classification and characteristics". This new section would allow licensees to pursue attemative methods for meeting the performance capabilities without requiring an exemption to the regulations.
l l
l 5
t