ML20216H972
| ML20216H972 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 04/28/1999 |
| From: | Merrifield J NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Vietticook A NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20216H926 | List: |
| References | |
| SECY-99-115-C, NUDOCS 9910040123 | |
| Download: ML20216H972 (2) | |
Text
ese f4es eisN iiorst cei.teur 2 001 se 04/27 22:38 A F F I R M A T I O N VOTE RESPONSE SHEET TO:
Annette Vietti-Cook, Secretary FROM:
COMMISSIONER MERRIFIELD
SUBJECT:
SECY-99-115 - FINAL RULE: AMENDMENTS TO 10 CFR PART 72-MISCELLANEOUS CHANGE 0 TO LICENSING REQUIREMENTS FOR THE INDEPENDENT STORAGE OF SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL AND HIGH-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE Approved Disapproved Abstain Not Participating.
COMMENTS:
k aNded to e m, +e, SIG/f4)3fR F ' " #
~
A-l Ml94 DATE '
Entered on "AS" Yes No
??A 2814 728! 7 CURRESPONDENCE PDR
py :y l"
l-L Commissioner Merrifield's comments:
l l approve the staff recommendations in SECY-99-115 to issue the final rulemaking on the 3
miscellaneous changes to the licensing requirements found in 10 CFR Part 72. As far as the modifications to the actuallicensing requirements, I have no concems. However, the staff requested an explicit statement from the Commission approving the response to public comment number 7, which states that reporting and recording requirements are not considered backfits. I find the response, as written, not satisfactory in that it does not provide the whole
. picture. I approve a revised response to comment 7 which reads as follows:
Resoonse: Under 9 72.62, "backfitting" includes the modification, after the license has been issued, of procedures or organizations required to operate an ISFSI or MRS. This backfitting provision is very simiar to the Backfit Rule in S 50.109. The Commission has determined that reporting and record keeping requirements are not considered backfits even though they may result in changes to procedures. If the reporting or record keeping requirements had to meet the standards for a backfit analysis, the Commission would have to find that the information would substantially increase public health or safety or common defense and security,without knowing the results of the request. In addition, the existence or non-existence of a record or report usually has no independent safety significance as compared to actions taken by the licensee or NRC as a result of the information contained in the record or report. It is this resulting action that affects public health and safety or the common defense or security that should be measured under the backfit standard and not the method for obtaining or j
maintaining the information.
Nevertheless, the Commission also recognizes that imposing reports or record keeping requirements may have a significant impact on a licensee's resources. The standard for authorizing reporting or record keeping requirements for NRC licensees that is contained in the Code of Fedeial Regulations should be the same standard as the regulations requiring the providing of information under 10 CFR 50.54(f). Namely, before the staff either changes existing requirements or issues new requirements affecting reporting or record keeping, a written analysis should be prepared that contains (a) a statement that describes the need for the information in terms of the potential sa4ty benefit and, if appropriate, a discussion of possible alternatives and (b) the licensee actions required and the cost to develop a response to the information request. In addition, the imposition of the new or modified reporting or record
- keeping requirement should be approved by the appropriate level of senior management (namely the Executive Director for Operations or his or her designee) or the Commission itself in the case of rulemaking. For rulemaking, the analysis justifying either modifications to existing or new reporting and record keeping requirements shall be contained in the regulatory analysis.
The regulatory analysis section of this rulemaking package adequately addresses the Commission's standards for this specific record keeping requirement."
%P I
[
L
l
\\
~
v# %
j UNITED STATES g,
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION IN RESPONSE, PLEASE g
WASHINGTON,0.C. 20555-0001 REFER TO: M990527 May 27, 1999 SECRETARY MEMORANDUM FOR:
William D. Travers Executive Director for Operations John F. Cordes, Acting Director l
Office of Commission Appellate Adjudication FROM:
Annette Vietti-Cook, Secretary
SUBJECT:
STAFF REQUIREMENTS - AFFIRMATION SESSION,11:30 A.M.,
THURSDAY, MAY 27,1999, COMMISSIONERS' CONFERENCE ROOM, ONE WHITE FLINT NORTH, ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND (OPEN TO PUBLIC ATTENDANCE)
L SECY-99-115 - Final Rule: Amendments to 10 CFR Part 72 - Miscellaneous Chanaes to Licensina Reauirements for the independent Storaae of Spent Nuclear Fuel and Hiah-
_L_evel Radioactive Waste The Commission approved a final rule (with the attached changes) amending various sections of 10 CFR Part 72, Miscellaneous Changes to Licensing Requirements for the independent Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-level Radioactive Waste. These changes differentiate the requirements for the storage of spent fuel under wet and dry conditions, clarify requirements for the content and submission of various reports, and specify that quality assurance reco.is must be maintained as permanent records when identified with activities and items important to safrty.
Following incorporation of these changes, the Federal Reaister notice should be reviewed by the Rules Review and Directives Branch in the Office of Administration and forwarded to the Office of the Secretary for signature and publication.
(EDO)
(SECY Suspense:
6/25/99)
Should the rulemaking to revise 10 CFR 50.73(b) go forward, the staff should consider at that time whether conforming changes to Part 72 would be appropriate.
Section 201 of the Energy Reorganization Act,42 U.S.C. Section 5841, provides that action of the Commission shall be determined by a " majority vote of the members present." Commissioner Diaz was not present when these items were affirmed.
Accordingly the formal vote of the Commission was 4-0 in favor of the decisions.
Commissioner Diaz, however, had previously indicated that he would approve these papers and had he been present he would have affirmed his prior votes.
b b
N
e
=
JL RECY-99-138 - Hydro Resources. Inc. (HRI)- ENDAUM's & SRIC's Petition for Interlocutory Review of Presidino Officer's Order Geekina Additional Information (Aoril 21.1999) and ENDAUM's & SRIC's Motion for Reconsideration of a May 3.1999 Order The Commission approved a Memorandum and Order responding to filings by Eastern Navajo Din 6 Against Uranium Mining (ENDAUM) and Southwest Research and information Center (SRIC). The Memorandum and Order denies the Intervenors' May 14,1999, petition for interlocutory review of the Presiding Officer's April 21,1999, Memorandum and Order (Questions Concerning Radioactive Air Emissions) and grants Intervenors' May 13,1999 motion for reconsideration of the Commission's May 3,1999, order.
(Subsequently, on May 27,1999, the Secretary signed the Memorandum and Order.)
Attachment:
Changes and Comments on SECY-99-115 cc:
Chairman Jackson Commiss;oner Dicus Commissioner Diaz Commissioner McGaffigan Commissioner Merrifield OGC CIO CFO OCA OlG OPA Office Directors, Regions, ACRS, ACNW, ASLBP (via E-Mail)
I l
i Attachment Changes and Comments on SECY-99-115 1.
On page 3 of the FRN, paragraph 3, revise line 1 to read 'The current regulations in @@
72.122 and 72.124.
2.
On page 9 of the FRN, paragraph 1, revise line 1 to read '. four letters containing nineteen comments responding.
3.
On page 12 of the FRN, last paragraph, revise line 2 to read '. fuel storage installations (ISFSI) reporting format and content requirements consistent with.
4.
On pages 13-14, revise the response to comment 7 so that it reads as follows:
Resoonse: Under 9 72.62, "backfitting" includes the modification, after the license has been issued, of procedures or organizations required to operate an ISFSI or MRS.
This backfitting provision is very simiar to the Backfit Rule in @ 50.109. The Commission has determined that reporting and record keeping requirements are not considered backfits even though they may result in changes to procedures. If the reporting or record keeping requirements had to meet the standards for a backfit analysis, the Commission would have to find that the information would substantially increase public health or safety or common defense and security without knowing the results of the request. In addition, the existence or non-existence of a record or report usually has no independent safety significance as compared to actions taken by the licensee or NRC as a result of the information contained in the record or report. It is this resulting action that affects public health and safety or the common defense or security that should be measured under the backfit standard and not the method for obtaining or maintaining the information.
Nevertheless, the Commission also recognizes that imposing reports or record keeping requirements may have a significant impact on a licensee's resources. The standard for authorizing reporting or record keeping requirements for NRC licensees that is contained in the Code of Federal Regulations should be the same standard as the regulations requiring the providing of information under 10 CFR 50.54(f). Namely, before the staff either changes existing requirements or issues new requirements affecting reporting or record keeping, a written analysis should be prepared that contains (a) a statement that describes the need for the information in terms of the potential safety benefit and, if appropriate, a discussion of possible alternatives and (b) the licensee actions required and the cost to develop a response to the information request. In addition, the irnposition of the new or modified reporting or record keeping requirement should be approved by J
the appropriate level of senior management (namely the Executive Director for Operations or his or her designee) or the Commission itself in the case of rulemaking.
For rulemaking, the analysis justifying either modifications to existing or new reporting l
and record keeping requirements shall be contained in the regulatory analysis. The regulatory analysis section of this rulemaking package adequately addresses the
{
Commission's standards for this specific record keeping requirement.
i
,