ML20236H806
| ML20236H806 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 07/01/1998 |
| From: | Callan L NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | Diaz N, Shirley Ann Jackson, Mcgaffigan E, The Chairman NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| References | |
| SECY-97-279-C, NUDOCS 9807070361 | |
| Download: ML20236H806 (4) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
'1 p neo p
y UNITED STATES Ij NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g
2 WASHINGTON, D.c. 20555-0001
\\*****/
July 1, 1998 i
MEMORANDUM TO: Chairman Jackson Commissioner Diaz Commissioner McGaffigan l
FROM:
L. Joseph Callan Executive Director fc'r perations
SUBJECT:
RULEMAKING FOR 10 CFR PART 51, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION REGULATIONS in response to the staff requirements memorandum (SRM) dated January 13,1998, pertaining to SECY-97-279, the staff plans to amend the 10 CFR Part 51 requirement that license renewal applicants address tne generic and cumulative environmentalimpacts of transportation of high-level waste (HLW) in the vicinity of an HLW repository. This rulemaking will also amend Part 51 to address the environmentalimpacts of the use of higher burn-up fuel and of transportation on local services during the renewal term.
The proposed rulemaking would revise 10 CFR Section 51.53 (c)(3)(ii)(M) and Table B-1 of Subpart A, Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 51, to reflect the generic and cumulative environmental impacts of transportation of HLW in the vicinity of an HLW repository as a Category 1 issue.
This revision would allow a license renewal applicant to adopt the staff's generic analysis so that a plant-specific analysis of the generic and cumulative environmentalimpacts of HLW transportation in the vicinity of an HLW repository would not need to be performed. Specifically, Section 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(M) would be deleted and Table B-1 would be modified to reflect the Category 1 designation. As discussed in SECY-97-279, the basis for the rule change would be the staff's supplemental analysis performed to evaluate the environmentalimpacts of spent nucisar fuel transportation in the vicinity of the proposed Yucca Mountain HLW repository O
attribu'able to license renewal. The report," Supplemental Analysis: Cumulative Environmental Impacts of Spent Nuclear Fuel Transport in the Vicinity of the Proposed Yucca Mountain High-
}
Level Waste Repository Attributable to License Renewal, and implications of Higher Burn-Up I
Fuel for the Conclusions in Table S-4," was completed in April 1998. As discussed in SECY 279, the report has been placed in the PDR, and is available for near-term license renewal
~
g --
applicants to reference in their applications, consistent with Option 2 if Option 2 is deemed i
go.
necessary under the guidance in the SRM.
QuW The staff's supplemental analysis also supports rulemaking to address the environmental impacts of the use of higher burn-up fuel. The proposed rulemaking would revise 10 CFR
,hg 51.53(c)(ii)(M) and Table B-1 of Subpart A, Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 51 to reflect the use of o c a.
higher enriched uranium and higher burn-up values. Many licensees have requested and Si received license amendments to use higher enriched fuel and to allow higher burn-up. The bases for these amendments and proposed rule change include the staff's supplemental 5:n.o analysis, NUREG/CR-5009," Assessment of the Use of Extended Burn-Up Fuelin Light Water qVN
- m QTf l-I c-7 ( k J&A 4
W,b I m
L -_ _ -____- _
J l
The Commission Power Reactors " dated February 1988, and " Extended Burn-Up Use in Commercial LWRs; Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant impact" (53 FR 6040), dated February 29,1988.
As an administrative amendment to the rule, the staff also proposes to address the environmentalimpacts of transportation on local services during the renewal term. This issue was identified as a Category 2 issue in NUREG-1437, " Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants" (GEIS), dated May 1996. Hr. ever, it was inadvertently omitted from 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(J) and Table B-1. The proposed rule would add this issue as a Category 2 issue for which a license renewal applicant would need to provide a plant-specific impact analysis in its environmental report.
Absent significant public comment and identification of major issues, the milestones and completion dates for the proposed rule are as follows:
Draft rule to the EDO: 8/30/98 Draft rule to the Commission: 9/15/98 Comment period: 75 days Final rule office-level concurrence: 4/30/99 Final rule to the EDO: 5/30/99 Final rule to the Commission: 6/15/99 Resources to conduct this rulemaking are budgeted at approximately.25 FTE and $25K in contract support.
The Office of the General Counsel has no legal objection to this memorandum. The Office of Administration concurs in this rulemaking plan. The Office of the Chief Financial Officer has i
reviewed this paper for resource implications and has no objections.
cc: SECY OGC OCA OIP CFO CIO i
i i
i i
c
-- O
Tha Commission,
.t j
Power Reactors," dated February 1988, and " Extended Burn-Up Use in Commercial LWRs; Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant impact" (53 FR 6040), dated February 29,1988.
As an administrative amendment to the rule, the staff also proposes to address the environmentalimpacts of transportation on local services during the renewal term. This issue was identified as a Category 2 issue in NUREG-1437, " Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants" (GEIS), dated May 1996. However, it was inadvertently omitted from 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(J) and Table B-1. The proposed rule would add this issue as a Category 2 issue for which a license renewal applicant would need to provide a plant-specific impact analysis in its environmental report.
Absent significant public comment and identification of major issues, the milestones and completion dates for the proposed rule are as follows:
Draft rule to the EDO: 8/30/98 Draft rule to the Commission: 9/15/98 Comment period: 75 days Final rule office-level concurrence: 4/30/99 Final rule to the EDO: 5/30/99 Final rule to the Commission: 6/15/99 Resources to conduct this rulemaking are budgeted at approximately.25 FTE and $25K in contract support.
The Office of the General Counsel has no legal objection to this memorandum. The Office of Administration concurs in this rulemaking plan. The Office of the Chief Financial Officer has reviewed this paper for resource implications and has no objections.
l cc: SECY OGC OCA OIP CFO CIO DISTRIBUTION: See attached page DOCUMENT NAME:G:tCMCitRULEPLAN.WDP
- See previous concurrence OFC TEditor*
(A)BC:PGEB*
(A)D:DRPM*
ADM*
NAME BCalure TEssig:sw JRoe l
DATE 03/20/98 05/26/98 05/28/98 04/08/98 D:N b /
CFO*
Em OFC OGC*
NAME WReamer Sb[
LJC aM DATE V /2l/98 06/ 6/98 06/05/98
[-,/
98 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
~
l Yk
/r/V t
f.' ;
)
DISTRIBUTION:_Memolo_ Commissioners. Dated _ July-1,_1998-
.gentral Files
- PUBLIC EDO R/F (WITS NO. 9800003)
PGEB r/f SCollins/FMiraglia
'JRoe/DMatthews PGEB R/F TEssig :
l MMalloy l
RAuluck
' DCleary
. CCraig BZalcman JWilson i-CGrimes, PDLR 3
DMeyer, ADM l
I c
=
__