ML20237D450
| ML20237D450 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 08/07/1998 |
| From: | Mcgaffigan E NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Hoyle J NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20237D438 | List: |
| References | |
| SECY-98-172-C, NUDOCS 9808260193 | |
| Download: ML20237D450 (8) | |
Text
__
NOTATION VOTE RESPONSE SHEET TO:
John C. Hoyle, Secretary l
FROM:
COMMISSIONER MCGAFFIGAN
SUBJECT:
SECY-98-172 - PROPOSED RULE: " CERTIFICATION RENEWAL AND AMENDMENT PROCESSES,"
10 CFR PART 76 Approved X
Disapproved Abstain Not Participating COMMENTS:
I approve the proposed revisions to Part 76 to ensure a more effective and efficient certificate renewal and amendment process for the gaseous diffusion plants.
I commend the staff for providing the Commission a proposed rule only three months after receiving Commission direction on the modified rulemaking plan described in SECY-98-044.
I suggest edits to the Federal Register notice, draft letter to Congress and press release as indicated on the attached pages.
I l
SIGN TUR
- UU
?
1198 DATE D Entered on "AS" Yes K No 9808260193 900821 PDR COMMS t#tCC CORRESPONDENCE PDR I
L
~
[7590-01-P]
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Part 76 RIN: 3150-AF85
)
Certification Renewal and Amendment Processes AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
l l
ACTION: Proposed rule.
l 1
SUMMARY
- The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is proposing to amend its regulations l
that apply to gaseous diffusion plants. In 1994, these regulations established the process by which the NRC would assume regulatory authonty for the Paducah and Portsmouth gaseous diffusion plants. These plants first came under NRC oversight on March 3,1997. While implementing the initial certification and amendment processes specified in the 1994 l
i regulations, the NRC staff identified several areas in these processes that should be revised and improved so that they are more effective and efficient. This proposed rulemaking would modify the process for certificate renewals, establish a process for certificate amendments comparable l
to the process currently used to amend a fuel cycle license, revise the appeal process for i
amendments, eliminate the significant designation for amendments, simplify the criteria for y,
persons who are eligible to file a petition for review of an amendment action, remove references to the initial application because the initial certificates have been issued, and lengthen the time periods associated with filing a petition for review I
~
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The Paducah and Portsmouth gaseous diffusion plants (
s) first came under NRC X
oversight on March 3,1997. Since that date, as the NRC implemented the initial certification and numerous certificate amendments under the processes specified in the 1994 regulations, the staff has identified several areas to improve the renewal and amendment processes so that they are more effective and efficient. Also, in the 1994 regulations, the certificate renewal period was 1 year. However, by amendment of the Atomic Energy Act (AEA) of 1954, as amended, and implementing rulemaking, this period was recently modified to allow up to 5 years between certificate renewals. These events have caused the NRC to reexamine the Part 76 certificate renewal and amendment processes. Hence, the objechve of this proposed rule is to revise and improve the current regulations so that the staff can effectively and efficiently handle certificate renewals as well as the number of certificate amendments that could reasonably be expected over the recently established period of up to 5 years between certificate renewals. This proposed rulemaking would modify the process for certificate renewals, establish a process for certificate amendments comparable to the process currently used to amend a fuel cycle license, revise the appeal process for amendments, eliminate the ignificant designation for y
amendments, simplify the criteria for persons who are eligible to file a petition for review of a certificate amendment action, remove references to the initial application because the initial certificates have been issued, and lengthen the time periods associated with filing a petition for review.
3
This would contribute to a more efficient use of agency resources and is comparable to the process used for facilities regulated by the Commission under 10 CFR Parts 30,40, and 70.
Section 76.45(b) would be deleted. The first sentence currently requires that the Director
- determine whether the proposed activities are significant, and if so, follow the procedures specified in $$ 76.37 and 76.39. This sentence would be deleted because the procedures specified in 9 76.37 to be followed by the Director would become discretionary, and the procedures specified in 9 76.39 are currently discretionary. Accordingly, it would not be logical caen A Mskeh 5
to compel the Director to follow either of them. This deletion would eliminate the significant A a cp et h
4 m
4..Jg.A@ This deletion is intended to provide a more flexible and efficient regulatory process. f
- a A.h es However, the public's opportunity to follow each amendment action remains the same because licensing documents are placed in the Commission's Public Document Room, and the public would have an opportunity to file a petition for review of an amendment as described in proposed 5 76.45(d). In addition, the last sentence in 9 76.45(b) would be deleted because decisions on certificate amendment applications would be delegated to the branch chief level.
This delegation would be comparable to the process currently used for 10 CFR Part 30,40, and 70 facilities.
The current 9 76.45(c) would be redesignated as paragraph (b) because the current paragraph (b) would be deleted.
In proposed 5 76.45(c), the first sentence would provide that a certificate amendment would become effective when issued. This would allow the NRC staff to handle issues that need to be addressed quickly to avoid an unnecessary op tratior.ai upset of a large gaseous diffusion 5
L--_-__-_---.---____-_.-__
~
remlins in effect." This change would make cle'r that the Directors decision is effeciiva upon issuance and would eliminate a potential 60-day suspension of the effectiveness of the Directors decision, if a petition for review is filed. The Directors decision would remain in effect unless it is changed by the Commission. This procedure would also be more consistent with the process for license renewals pursuant to 10 CFR Parts 30,40, and 70. In addition, to accommodate the increased time for both filing a petition for review and responding to a petition, the time provided for the Commission to act would be increased from 60 to 90 days following publication of the Federal Register notice.
The changes made in 6 76.62(c) would also be made in 9 76.64(d) for the same reasons.
in the introductory text of 9 76.91, reference to 9 76.35(d) would be changed to 6 76.35(f) to correct a typographical error, in addition, Part 76 would be modified to remove references to the initial application that are no longer relevant because the initial certificates have been issued. In SS 76.33 (a)(1), (b),
i (c), (d), and (e), and 76.35, references to " initial" would be removed. Section 76.9 (c) would be l
removed as no longer relevant because of the reference to the initial certification application.
Phrases in $$ 76.21 (a), 76.36(a),76.60(e)(2), and 76.91 (n) concerning initial certification would be removed. References in $$ 76.7(e)(1),76.60(c)(2),76.60(d)(2), and 76.60(e)(1) to the NMSS Directors initial decision would be removed.
Section 76.33 would also be amended to correct a printing errorin the regulatory text. In 9 76.33(a)(2) the phrase "the names, addresses, and citizenship of its principal office," would
)(
be removed.
MbN 8
/
g UNITED STATES s
y NUCLEAR REEULATORY COMMISSION f
CACHINGTEN D.C. asseHem
\\...../
The Honorable Dan Schaefer, Chairman l
Subcommittee on Energy and Power Committee on Commerce United States House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 l
l
Dear Mr. Chairman:
Enclosed for the information of the subcommittee is a copy of a proposed amendment to 10 CFR Part 76, to be published in the Federal Register The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is proposing to amend its regulations applying to gaseous diffusion plants. In 1994, these regulations established the process by which NRC would assume regulatory authonty over the Paducah and Portsmou'h gaseous diffusion plants.
l These plants first came under NRC oversight on March 3,1997. While implementing the initial L
certification and amendment processes specified in the 1994 regulations, the staff identified several areas in these prc:: esses that needed to be revised and improved so that they wou'.d be i
more effective and effi~cient. This proposed rulemaking would: (1) modify the process for certificate renewals; (2) establish a process for a certificate amendment comparable to the process currently used to amend a fuel cycle license (3) revise the appeal process for amendments; (4) eliminate the significant (not significant) designations for amendments; (5) simplify the criteria for persons who are eligible to file petdions for review of amendment actions; (6) remove references to the initial applications because the initial esrtificates have been issued; and (7) lengthen the time periods ' associated with filing petitions for review.
1 Enclosed is a copy of the proposed rule, which is being transmitted to the Office of the Federal Register for publication, allowing 60 days for public comment. A Regulatory Flexibility Certification is not needed for this amendment because it would have no adverse economic
/
impact on NRC licensees, certificate holders, or the public. An abbreviated Regulatory Analysis is included within the Federal Register notice.
l Sincerely, 1
bc.! cpen h EN ro c L h o esty 4..,, o.a oc s-Dennis K. Rathbun, Director
(
i Office of Congressional Affairs 9
p,.4 Amere ao
Enclosure:
4 gy g.,r. e Federal Register notice
%U decu ~<4 h, m cc: Representative Ralph Hall b @c b% n 4. k w e g M,
v (:b pe M k 6e
=
1 NRC CONSIDERS CHANGES TO REGUI.ATIONS FOR RENEWING OR AMENDING USEC CERTIFICATES The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is seeking public comment on proposed changes to regulations that govern uranium enrichment plants operated by the U.S.
Enrichment Corporation (USEC) at Portsmouth, Ohio, and Paducah, Kentucky.
NRC first issued regulations in 1994 to establish the process by which it would assume regulatory authority for the 43-year-old gaseous ciiffusion plants, which previously operated under the authority of the Department of Energy and the Atomic Energy l
Commission. The Energy Policy Act of 1992 directed that USEC operate the plants and J
required the NRC to certify them periodically to ensure compliance with its safety, j
safeguards and security requirements. The NRC assumed regulatory jurisdiction over the plants' operations in 1997; after issuing initial certificates of compliance to USEC.
In implementing the certificate renewal and amendment processes, the NRC staff has identified several improvements that should be made. The proposed revisions would:
(1) Give NRC officials discretion as to whether to publish a Federal Register notice when an application for certificate renewal is received. Presently such publication is mandatory. Under the revisions for exam e renewal application does not addrous y
T any new safety iss r there have not been any major changes to the facility or its operat'ng procedures that would substantially increase the risk, the NRC might decide that a Federal Register notice is not necessary.
(2) Allow responsibility for granting or denying an amendment application to be delegated to the appropriate NRC branch chief, a lower level of management than currently l
required. Decisions by a branch chief could be appealed to the Office Director and, if necessary, to the Commission. (Currently, decisions on amendment applications are made by the Office Director and can be appealed the Commission.)
x
4 % Make NRC staff decisions en certificate renewei requests eNectiv3 upon'
- issuance, ive the staff discretion as to whether to publish a Federal Register notice x
i
'd b **-
Sb d"y announcing such decisione/) a cA incee4.5e 4. bW 55'o* 3 5 / Eliminate restrictions as to who may flie a petition seeldng review of NRC's approval or denial of a certificate of compliance or a plan for achieving compliance for a gaseous diffusion plant. Also, the proposed changes would extend the time to file a petition from 15 to 30 days after a Federal Register notice is published.
Further details of the proposed changes will be contained in a notice to be published in the Federal Register shortly. Interested persons are invited to submitwritten comments within 60 days of the notice to the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff. Comments may also be submitted electronically, via the agency's interactive rulemaking web site at
. http://www.nrc. gov /NRC. rule.html.
N#
1 red *
(3) d.
A o. w u,A ait+n b 6%
"s.6^
a b.'nov asy &,aA ' o w,4 weA s -
i 1
2
UNITED STATES U"
4 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON. D C. 20555-0001
{
j e
August 21, 1998 t
,/
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY MEMORANDUM TO:
L. Joseph Callan xecutive Director for Operations 6.-
FROM:
on yle, Secretary STAFF REQUIREMENTS - SECY-98-172 - PROPOSED RULE:
SUBJECT:
" CERTIFICATION RENEWAL AND AMENDMENT PROCESSES," 10 CFR PART 76 The Commission has approved publication of the notice of proposed rulemaking for public comment subject to the changes provided in the attachment. The attachment also contains changes which should be included in the letter to Congress and the press release.
(EDO)
(SECY Suspense:
9/18/98) i i
Attachment:
i As stated cc:
Chairman Jackson Commissioner Diaz Commissioner McGaffigan OGC CIO CFO OCA OlG Office Directors, Regions, ACRS, ACNW, ASLBP (via E-Mail)
)
l l
_.__._____._____.__.m___
Changes to the Federal Reaister Notice 1.
On page 1, line 10, place 'significant' in quotations marks.
On page 3, line 1, replace '(GAPS)' with '(GDPs).' in line 15, place 'significant' in 2.
t quatation marks.
I On page 5, paragraph 2, line 6, insert ' current distinction between' before 'significant.'
3.
On line 7, replace ' designation' with 'and not significant proposed activities.'
On page 8, last paragraph, line 2, insert ' redundant' before ' phrase.'
4.
Change to the Congressional Letter At the end of the second paragraph, add the following sentence. "The public's opportunity to follow each licensing action remains the same because licensing documents are placed in the Commission's Public Document Room, and the public continues to have an opportunity to file a petition for review."
Changes to the Press Release l
On page 1, item (1), line 3, delete the comma after 'if' and move 'if' to after ' example.' In 1.
line 4, delete the comma.
2.
On page 1, item (2), last line, insert 'directly' after 'appeated.'
On page 2, insert a new item (3): " Eliminate the current distinction between "significan 3.
and "not significant" amendments." Renumber the remaining items.
On page 2, new item (4), line 2, delete 'and.' in line 3, after ' decisions' add a comma 4.
followed by 'and increase the Commission's review time from 60 to 90 days.'
I
_ _ A