ML20217B271
| ML20217B271 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/09/1998 |
| From: | Mcgaffigan E NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Callan L NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| References | |
| COMSECY-98-04, COMSECY-98-4, NUDOCS 9804220473 | |
| Download: ML20217B271 (1) | |
Text
[ area UNITED STATES j'
- o$
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION * * * * * *
- WASHINGTON, D.c. 20555 RELEASED TO THE PDR k/6 [97 Aj'".
b d'W U'
March 9,1998 s
Commissioner eeeeeee4eseoec eoeesees MEMORANDUM TO:
L. Joseph Callan Executive Director for Operations FROM:
Edward McGaifigan, Jr.
SUBJECT:
COMSECY-98-004, COMBINED LICENSE REVIEW PROCESS On March 4,1998, I told the Office of the Secretary that I had no objection to making public the i
draft SECY paper attached to COMSECY-98-04. Now, however, having read Commissioner Dieus' March 4,1998, memorandum on the draft paper, I believe that her approach to the issue j
of the duration of a combined license is to be preferred to the approach the draft paper takes to the same issue. I would ordinarily prefer that a document being presented for public comment present alternatives where reasonable ones exist, and I believe that a reasonable alternative exists in the present case, largely because I am confident that nothing in the legislative history of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPA 92) suggests that Congress intended that holders of COLs under Part 52 should have less operating time than holders of an operating license under Part 50.
However, I would ask my colleagues to consider taking the more direct approach of seeking legislative " technical correction
- of the issue now, rather than waiting for public comment. I am persuaded by the draft paper that there is a reasonable doubt about the validity of section 52.83 of 10 CFR as a result of flawed technical drafting in EPA 92. But the question of whether COL holders should have 40 years for operation is not a policy issue that requires great deliberation.
No one is arguing that as a matter of policy certified designs should not be permitted to operate for 40 years without license renewal. Therefore, rather than engage in debate on what the best legal view is, we should simply seek to have the AEA clarified, perhaps even in the FY 1999 appropriations bill.
I would prefer to seek legislation now. But lacking Commission agteement on that approach,1 J
would support Commissioner Dicus' proposal.
i cc:
Chairman Jackson Commissioner Dieus i
Commissioner Diaz SECY f
)
s OGC i
{), '
~
,,i.
}
I i'
{ 4\\
r 1,.
n',
f I
,t 'j r
9804220473 980309 4 T-1-
PDR COMMS NRCC CORRESPONDENCE PDR
( g,
,,c 5