ML20216A957
| ML20216A957 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/31/1998 |
| From: | Mcgaffigan E NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Hoyle J NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20216A925 | List: |
| References | |
| FRN-63FR26955 AF32-2-026, AF32-2-25, AF32-2-26, SECY-98-024-C, SECY-98-24-C, NUDOCS 9804130334 | |
| Download: ML20216A957 (4) | |
Text
T 1
A F F I R M A T I O N VOTE
~
I RESPONSE SHEET
! l
! TO: John C. Hoyle, Secretary j i
i FROM: COMMISSIONER MCGAFFIGAN
~
SUBJECT:
SECY-98-Oh . lNAL AMENDMENTS TO 10 CFR PARTS 60, l 72,73,74, AND 75," PHYSICAL PROTECTION FOR SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL AND HIGH-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE" l
Approved s Disapproved Abstain Not Participating Request Discussion l
COMMENTS:
See attached comments and edited pages.
)
i 3 l , lT 6 SI NATURE
/
(I[( h,<//$f-)~
Release Vote /x / //
DATE *'~U Withhold Vote / /
Entered on "AS" Yes y No
(, ,
!!R*' nan *n CORRESPONDENCE PDR
I
- r. .
" Commissioner McGaffiaan's Comments on SECY-98-024:
I approve the final amendments to '10 CFR 60,72,73,74 and 75, " Physical Protection for Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste" subject to the comments below.
- I support option 2 described in Chairman Jackson's vote to clarify that the requirements l contained in 10 CFR 73.51(d)(1) through (13) provide one method acceptable to NRC L for meeting the performance capabilities of 10 CFR 73.51(b)(2) and to add language l
(similar to 10 CFR 61.58) to the effect that the Commission may authorize other methods for meeting these performance capabilities.
- j. -
I agree with Commissioner Dieus that the staff should ensure that Part 60 is consistently referenced throughout the various documents. In that regard, I offer the attached edits to the draft Congressionalletters.
The costs estimates included in Tables 2 and 3 should reflec. .nore up to date cost figures, or at : minimum, should be adjusted for inflation.
I am concerned about the removal of Part 50 possession only licensees from the scope of this rulemaking (apparently because of continued study of the possible need for l continued protection against a vehicle bomb). The staff should report when it will be l able to proceed with physical protection rulemaking for Part 50 licensees who have l ceased operations and are storing the spent fuel in the pool, and who remain under the physical protection requirements of 10 CFR 73.55 with exemptions on a case by case basis. The staff should explain their r,riteria for granting exemptions to 10 CFR 73.55 ;
- requirements in the interim period before rulemaking is completed.
l
f'.
e k) c%et SNI0 No gf e No -IL* lck$ d '
G & Lh.fc..
The Honorable Dan Schaefer, Chairman Subcommittee on Energy and Power Committee on Commerce United States House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515
Dear Mr. Chairman:
The Nuclear ReDulatory Commission has sent to the Office of the Federal Register, for publication, the enclosed final rule to amend 10 CFR Parts 60,72, 73,74, and 75, promulgating physical protection requirements for storage of spent fuel and high-level radioactive waste.
This final rule will codify standards for protecting spent fuel at the various storage facilities art 72. Previous physical protection requirements for protecting such material y
licensed under/')
lacked clarity ir defining which physical protection regulations were to be applied at s fkhi 60 er The final rule has been revised, in response to the public comments, to eliminate any redundant requirements, add flexibility to rule implementation, and clarify specific issues identified by affected licensees.
Sincerely, Dennis K. Rathbun, Director Office of Congressional Affairs
Enclosure:
Federal Reaister Notice cc Representative Ralph Hall
$bc S e,fcoYCN*jQ{elbA Je \h -ll-
- Mr. Robert P. Murphy 4 General Counsel m I General Accounting Office (N
- O[ j"#[' '
Room 7175 441 G Street, N. W.
Washington, DC 20548 i
Dear Mr. Murphy:
{
l Pursuant to Subbtle E of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Faimess Act of 1996, {
5 U.S.C. 801, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is submitting a final rule amending its j regulations in 10 CFR Parte 60, 72, 73, 74, and 75, for physical protection requirements for -
storage of spent fuel and t.ijfA;! radeoactive waste. This final rule will codify standards for protectog spent fuel at the various storage facilities licensed unde art 72. Previous x requirements for pMi such matenal lacked clarity in defining ich physical protection reguisbons were to be apphed at such sites. The NRC is also subm ting a companion document entitled: "NUREG-1619: Standard Rewsw Plan for Physical Protection Plans for the independent Storage of Spent Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Wa te." NUREG-1619 is a standard review plan for the NRC rewow and evaluabon of physical action plans submitted by hoensees in accordance with this final rule. yg, We have determined that this rule is not a " major rule," as defined in 5 U.S.C. 804(2). We have made the same determinsbon with regard to NUREG-1619. We have confirmed these determinations with the Office of Management and Budget.
Enclos= I %+uis
-EnsionesMPs copy of the final rule (::: EWm dwhich is being transmitted to the Office of the Federal Register for pubhcahon. The Regulatory Flexibility Certification is included in the final rule.
Analysis"{h x:':::p :a:s prepared for this final rulpich contanf fof NU
- '::= 4 u.et w s NRC's cost-benefit determi . This final rule is scheduled to become effective 180 day after publication in s
the Register. 1 Sincerely, .
l E "I*' ' '"
l
, E ncles-e 2- w6: A c.pg Dennis K. Rathbun, Director i Office of Congressional Affairs j Enclosures As stated l
1 l
l
p cacg D UNITED STATES
- j/
o#
d j, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION j
g , ' *, WASHIN GT ON D C 20555-0001 IN RESPONSE, PLEASE April 3, 1998 REFER TO: M9804038 OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY MEMORANDUM FOR: L. Joseph Callan Executive Director for Operations John F. Cordes, Acting Director ffice of Commission Appellate Adjudication Lrrecnn:>l Annette L. Vietti Lth ',l WWCook Acting Secretary FROM:
STAFF REQUIREMENTS - AFFIRMATION SESSION,10:30
SUBJECT:
A.M., FRIDAY, APRIL 3,1998, COMMISSIONERS' CONFERENCE ROOM, ONE WHITE FLINT NORTH, ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND (OPEN TO PUBLIC ATTENDANCE)
}
EECY-98-024- Final Amendments to 10 CFR Parts 60. 72. 73. 74. and 75.
- Physical Protection for Soent Nuclear Fuel and Hiah-level Radioactive Waste The Commission approved a final rule which provides amendments to 10 CFR Parts 60,72,73, 74, and 75 to clarify and make consistent physical protection requirements for independent storage of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste, subject to the modifications and clarifications in attechment 1.
Following incorporation of the changes, the Federal Reaister notice should be reviewed by the Rules Review and Directives Branch in the Office of Administration and forwarded of the Secretary for signature and publication.
(SECY Suspense: 5/29/98)
(EDO) in addition, the staff shou!d report when it will be able to proceed with physical protection h()
e rulemaking for Part 50 licensees who have ceased operations and are storing the spent fuel in the pool, and who remain under the physical protection requirements of 10 CFR 73.55 with d['
exemptions on a case by case basis. The staff should explain the criteria for granting exemptions to 10 CFR 73.55 requirements in the interim period before the rulemaking is completed.
(SECY Suspense: 5/1/98)
(EDO)
(
i I
\
[
i S
l JL -dCY-98-021 - Louisiana Enerav Services -- Review of LBP-96-25 (NEPA issu I Review of LBP-97-8 (Environmental Justice) 1 The Commission approved an order addressing the environmental questions raised in these two Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (Board) decisions regarding the proposed Claiborne Enrichment Center (CEC) that Louisiana Ene:gy Services (LES) plans to build near Homer,
)
LouisianaJ The Commission granted petitions, for review by LES and by the NRC staff to l consider first the issue of whether the Final Env. onmental impact Statement (FEIS) failed to discuss adequately the need for the CEC, the attemative of no action, and the CEC's secondary benefits and second, whether the FEIS failed to address adequately the " environmental justice' l issues. l The Commission (with all Commissioners agreeing and one exception, as noted below) f i
approved the attached order affirming in part, reversing in part, and remanding for further i l I proceedings the Board's NEPA rulings in LBP-96-25 and LBP-97-8. Specifically, the Memorandum and Order affirms the Board's finding regarding the likely price effects of the CEC but provides additional guidance to the Board that in performing ultimate cost-benefit balancing under NEPA, the Board must consider, in addition to the price effects, the other benefits of the CEC. It also affirms the Board's decision to require the NRC staff to revise the current FEIS 'no l action" discussion to reflect an evaluation of both the costs and the benefits of not building the i CEC and to reconsider the FEIS's current discussion of resumed logging. It reverses the Board's decision to invalidate the FEIS's reliance on the CEC's secondary benefits and reverses the Board's decision to require a thorough NRC inquiry into possible racial discrimination in the siting of the CEC. It affirms the Board's decision that the NRC staff should !
revise the FEIS to provide more analysis of the CEC's effect on pedestrian traffic between the nearby communities and to analyze local property value effects more thoroughly.
Chairman Jackson disapproved ody section 5.a. of the Commission order (with respect to LBP.
97-8), titled racial discrimination in siting. She would have affirmed in part and reversed in part the Board's requirement of a furt5er NRC staff investigation into the Claibome Enrichment i Center's siting. In light of the alleged irregularities, gaps, and inconsistencies in the siting !
process, it was her preference that the NRC staff should further investigate the siting process, without focussing on LES's alleged intentional racial motives, to ensure that the siting criteria l
were reasonable and applied equitably.
(Subsequently, on April 3,1998, the Acting Secretary signed the Order.) !
l l ,
I i
l l Attachments:
- 1. Comments and Clarifications to SECY-98-024 i
- 2. Memorandum and Order in LES matter i
1 1
~.
^
g ~ _ my n 1
wA
( s-
, -s s \
I . cc: Chairman Jackson L Commissioner Dieus
- Commissioner Diaz Commissioner McGaffigan I EDO OGC -
' CIO l CFO i OCAA OCA OlG Office Directors, Regions, ACRS, ACNW, ASLBP (via E-Mail)
i I
I l ..
l' l
e..
Attachment 1 - t A
Comments and Clarifications to SECY-98-024
- 1. The staff should clarify that the requirements in 10 CFR 73.51(d)(1) through (13) provide one method acceptable to the NRC for meeting performance capabilities of 10 CFR '
73.51(b)(2) and to add language (similar to 10 CFR 61.58) to the effect that the '
Commission may autherize other methods for meeting these performance capabilities.
- 2. In a number of places throughout the final rulemaking package, it is stated that this final rule will codify standards for protecting spent fuel at the various storage facilities j
licensed under Part 72. This and similar statements in the Federal Reaister notice, the regulatory analysis, the Congressional letters, and other places should be modified to mention protecting materials licensed under Part 60.
- 3. The cost estimates in Tables 2 and 3 should reflect more up to date cost figures, or at a minimum, should be adjusted for inflation.
- 4. In the letters to Representative Schaefer and Senator Inhofe, paragraph 2, line 2, inseit
Part 60 or' after 'under.'
- 5. In the letters to GAO, Vice President Gore, and Speaker Gingrich; paragraph 1, fine 5, l
insert 'Part 60 or' after 'under ' In paragraph 3, revise sentence 1 to read ' Enclosure 1 contains a copy of the final rule, which is being ....' Revise sentenca 3 to read
' Enclosure 2 contains a copy of NUREG-1619 and Enclosure 3 contains the " Regulatory Analysis" that was prepared for this final rule, which contains . .
-l l
l i
l
)
I l
i l-r l
\
L !
l l
,