ML20217A120
| ML20217A120 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/04/1998 |
| From: | Dicus G NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Callan L NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| References | |
| COMSECY-98-004, COMSECY-98-4, NUDOCS 9804220162 | |
| Download: ML20217A120 (2) | |
Text
3
/
o UNITED STATES
~
8 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o
O Y
WASHINGTON D.C.20555 4...........,
1
- g March 4,1998 RELEASED TOTHE PDR OFFICE O THE y
[
/
data initials '
- l MEMORANDUM TO:
L. Joseph Callan Executive Director for Operations U
FROM:
Commissioner Dicus tf
- ]
I
(
SUBJECT:
COMSECY-98-004, COM INED LICENSE REVIEW I
l PROCESS l
k l
l disagree with the proposed treatment of the duration of the combined license (COL)in the draft SECY paper contained in COMSECY-98-004. While it may be l
appropriate to seek public comment on the issue of when the 40-year term of the j
license should begin to run, the proposal should continue to support the current duration of the COL as described in the current 10 CFR 52.83. That is, the 40-year l
license begins when the Commission finds that the prescribed acceptance criteria are met pursuant to 10 CFR 52.99.
Not too many years ago, the NRC and licensees expended considerable effort in amending operating licenses to " recapture" the years spent constructing some power plants to assure they had a full 40 years of operation. The validity of our COL rule has been upheld. We should, therefore, not change the current rule l
without good reason.
l The intent of Congress in amending the AEA to recognize explicitly our Combined License, as I understand it, was to remove any question as to the validity of the NRC's combined licensing rule. Congress had the rule provisions in question before it when it amended the AEA. In fact, Congress explicitly affirmed the rules requirement for Commission findings under 10 CFR 50.99 in the amendment language. Therefore, before I reach a final conclusion on the appropriate regulatory approach with respect to combined license duration, I request that'OGC consider the following questions and provide an analysis of the Commission's options with respect to the duration issue.
1.
Is there any indication from the legislative history associated with the 1992 amendment to the AEA that Congress intended to change 10 CFR Part 52, which they were supposedly affirming, with respect to duration?
2.
Is there any indication in the legislative history that Congress even
{fC 7_)
considered this issue in its deliberations on the amendment?
9804220162 980304 O1D I ~
PDR COMMS NRCC e
i i gdr a>
L CORRESPONDENCE PDR y _ c; g,3 v C Q(o p %
k ig
's 3.
Is there any indication that Congress intended licenses to have a shorter l
period of operation because they received a combined license as opposed to j
a separate construction permit and operating license?
I do not object to the publication of the draft SECY for public comment provided both alternatives for the duration of a license (40 year operating license or 40-year l
COL) are discussed and comments are requested.
cc:
Chairman Jackson Commissioner Diaz l
Commissioner McGaffigan SECY OGC OCA OPA CFO CIO
(
l l
)