ML20155D143
Text
k N
Dea PDE Am 46V s
The Honorable Alan K. Simpson, Chairman IDENTICAL LETTER SENT T0:
Subcomittee on Nuclear Regulation Senator George J. Mitchell United States Senate Senator Gary Hart Washington, D.C.
20510
Dear Senator Simpson:
Thank you for your letter of March 15, 1983, expressing your concern about how the Comission would treat license amendment requests regarding the reracking of spent fuel storago pools in its interim final rule implementing the "Sholly" provision in the Fiscal Year 1982-83 NRC Authorization Act.
You are correct in your understanding that, under the staff proposal pending before the Commission (SECY-83-16B), the Comission would examine case-by-case license amendment requests to rerack spent fuel storage pools and that it would make a determination about whether any given amendment poses or does not pose significant hazards considerations based upon the " intrinsic circumstances" of the case.
In the past, the Comission has not taken a position on whether any particular reracking involves significant hazards considerations.
Nonetheless, it has been providing prior notice and an opportunity for a prior hearing on amendment requests involving reracking. As explained in SECY-83-168, the Comission will continue to offer such prior notice of these amendment requests and, additionally, solicit public coment on its proposed detenninations. Moreover, if it cannot determine that a particular reracking involves no significant hazards considerations, it will provide an opportunity for a prior hearing. As a matter of technical judgment, however, it is not prepared to say that all rerackings, without exception, are or are not likely to involve significant hazards considerations. A majority of the Comissioners believe that each amendment request for a reracking will have to be judged "with respect to its own intrinsic circumstances, using the standards in 6 50.92 of the interim final rule." Consequently, though the decision was a difficult one, the Comission has decided not to include s.
reracking of spent fuel storage pools in the list of examples in the preamble of the rule.
With respect to your point that reracking should be put into the rule itself as one of the standards, the Comission agrees with the Senate Comittee on Environment and Public Works in its coment upon the Comission's proposed rule "that reasonable persons may differ on whether a license anendment involves a significant hazards consideration." Additionally, the Comission has tried to develop and promulgate standards that, "to the maximum extent practicable, draw a clear distinction" between license amendments that do 8604170245 860327 PDR PR 2 45FR20491 PDR i
_2-l and those that do not involve significant hazards considerations; the Comission believes that the standards in the rule coupled with the examples in the preamble of the rule help draw as clear a distinction as practicable.
To provide the needed flexibility for the Comission's case-by-case decisions cn reracking, the Commission has decided, given its technical consensus, tlat it would not be appropriate to foreclose the question of significant hazards considerations by including reracking (or for that matter any other specific categories of actions) within the rule itself, but, rather, to provide several examples as generalized guidance for application of the rule.
(These guidelines will be distributed to all licensees and will be available in the Commission's main Public Document Room as well as in all such rooms throughout the country.) The Comission believes that this action is consistent with overall Congressional intent with respect to the "Sholly" provision, as evidenced in the Conference Report and various floor debates expressing approval of the Comission's then-proposed standards, which have been retained in the interim final rule.
l I thank you for allowing me the opportunity to explain the Comission's position on this difficult matter and hope we can continue to work together j
to implement this important piece of legislation.
l I
Sincerely, Nunzio J. Palladino Chairman i
DISTRIBUTION I
Dircks Roe l
Rehm Denton Minogue WJ0lmstead GHCunningham TFDorian j
..ED0 R/F GT #12903 i
I CA 0 ELD R/F OELD S/F Regs R/F Central File qFC :0 ELD
- 0 ELD
- ELD
- 0CA
____:_____ g ___.____ dg { :EDO 7--__:____ g_
FAME :TFDoVffn:js :RLFonner
- GHCunningham WJDircks g-___:____________:____________.____________.____________.
FATE:3/ /83
- 3/ /83
- 3/J3/83
- 3/ /83
- 3/ /83
..==-.;.---..
u -
[
UNITED STATES 8
f NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i
}-
3 wasmwoTow, o.c.zosos
\\.
cc /
~
^
March 24, 1983 0"
c w
MEMORANDUM FOR:
Chairman Palladino l
4 FRbM:
HerzelH.E.Plah.ne,GeneralCounsel Guy H. Cunningham, Executive Legal ~-
g 4
Director
SUBJECT:
LEdISLATIVE HISTORY OF IBOLLY' AMENDMENT
-- APPLICABILITY TO SPENT FUEL POOL RERACKING We h' ave reviewed the legislative history of Section 12 of P.L.97-415,. the so-called Sholly amendment, to see what refeiences were made regarding whether authorizations for spent fuel pool expansion or reracking should be deemed to involve significant hazards considerations.
The'first reference to the subject occurred in the House of
~
Representatives on November 5, 1981 when.the House version of the bill (H.R. 4255) was considered and passed.
Mrs. SNOWE.
Would the gentleman anticipate this no significant hazards consideration would not apply to license amendments regarding the expansion of a nuclear reactor's spent fuel storage capacity or the-reracking of spent fuel pools?
Mr. OTTINGER.
If the gentlewoman'will yield, the expansion of spent fuel pool and the reracking of the 7
spent fuel pools are clearly matters which raise significant hazards considerations, and thus amendments for such purposes could not, under section 11(a), be issued prior to the conduct or completion of any
~
requested hearing or without advance notice.
(127 Cong. Record'B 8156)
On the Senate side, the only reference to this topic is the language in the Report of the Committee on Environment and Public Works recommending approval of S.1207.
The Committee recognizes that~ reasonable persons may differ on whether a license amendment involves a significant hazards consideration.
Therefore, the Committee' expects the Commission to develop and promulgate standards that, to the maximum extent practicable draw a clear distinction between license amendments that involve a significant hazards t
)
s-f-
r-
, consideration.and those that involve no-significant
. hazards consideration.
The Committee anticipates, for example, that, consistent with prior practice, the Commission's, standards,would not permit a "no significant hazards consideration" determination for license amendments to permit reracking of spent fuel pools.
Moreover, it expects that the Commission, to the extent practicable, will-develop and promulgate standards that.can be applied with ease and certainty.
In addition, the determination of "no significant l
hazards consideration" should represent a judgment on.
the nature of the. issues raised by the license amendment rather than a conclusion about the, merits of those issues..
9 S. Rept.97-113 p. 15.
The-Conference Report is silent on the matter of spent fuel pool expansion or reracking.
Though not part o'f the published legislative history, there is also the exchange between Senater Mitchell and then-Majority Counsel Asselstine, quoted on page two of the March 15, 1983 letter from Senators Simpson, Hart and Mitchell:
?
e Senator Mitchell:
There is, as you know, an application for a license amendment pending on a nuclear facility in Maine which deals with the reracking storage question.
And am I correct in my understanding that the NRC has already found that such applications do present significant hazards
~
considerations and therefore that petition and sbnilar petitions would be unaffected by the proposed amendment?
Mr. Asselstine:
That is correct, Senator.
The Commission has never been able to categorize the spent
~
fuel storage,as a no significant hazards consideration.
In conclusion, we observe that although discussion of this issue is sparse, every reference, on both the House and Senate sides, reflects an understanding that expansion and reracking of spent fuel pools are matters which involve significant hazards considerations.
cc:
Commissioner Gilinsky Commissioner Ahearne Commissioner Roberts commissioner Asselstine OPE EDO ELD SECY 7.,3.
-s.-,,,,,_,--,-.
, - -, ~, -
g
....._-~._.,__._..._.--_E.ZT~~
)f[7f' C7 PDB Q
~
/
UNITE 3 STATES
/
i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 4
}
n$
WASHW80 TON, D. C.20055
.....J March 24, 1983 MEMORANDUM FOR:
Chairman Palladino FROM:
Herzel H.E. Plaine, General Counsel y
Guy H. Cunningham, Executive Legal ij Director
SUBJECT:
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF SHOLLY AMENDMENT
-- APPLICABILITY TO SPENT FUEL POOL RERACKING We have reviewed the legislative history of Section 12 of P.L.97-415, the so-called Sholly amendment, to see what references were-made regarding whether authorizations for spent fuel pool expansion or reracking should be deemed to involve significant hazards considerations.
The first reference to the subject occurred in the House of Representatives on November 5, 1981 when the House version of the bill (H.R. 4255) was considered and passed.
Mrs. SNOWE.
Would the gentleman anticipate this no
.significant hazards consideration would not apply to license amendments regarding the expansion of a nuclear reactor's spent fuel storage capacity or the reracking of-spent fuel pools?
Mr. OTTINGER.
If the gentlewoman will yield, the
' ' spent fuel pools are clearly matters whic.1 raise expansion of spent fuel pool and the rerecking of the significant hazards considerations, and thus amendments
~
for such purposes could not, under section 11(a), be issued prior to the conduct or completion of any requested hearing or without advance notice.
j (127 Cong. Record'H 8156)
On the Senate side, the only reference to this topic is the language in the Report of the Committee on Environment and Public Works recommending approval of S.1207.
+
The Committee recognizes that' reasonable' persons may i
differ on whether a license amendment involves a significant hazards consideration.
Therefore, the Committee' expects the Commission to develop and promulgate standards that, to the maximum extent practicable draw a clear distinction between license amendments that involve a significant hazards f
em f
m u
2 4
, consideration.and those that involve no significant hazards consideration.
The Committee anticipates, for example, that, consistent'with prior practice, the Commission's standards.would not permit a "no significant hazards consideration" determination for license amendments to permit reracking of spent fuel pools.
Moreover, it expects that the Commission, to the extent practicable, will develop and promulgate standards that can be applied with ease and certainty.
In addition, the determination of "no significant hazards consideration" should represent a judgment on the nature of the. issues raised by the license amendment rather than a conclusion about the merits of those issues.
S. Rept.97-113 p. 15.
The Conference Report is silent on the matter of spent fuel pool expansion or reracking.
Though not part of the published legislative history, there is also the exchange between Senator Mitchell and then-Majority Counsel Asselstine, quoted on page two of the March 15, 1983 letter from Senators Simpson, Hart and Mitchell:
Senator Mitchell:
There is, as you know, an application for a license amendment pending on a nuclear facility in Maine which deals with the reracking storage question.
And am I correct in my understanding that the NRC has already found that such applications do present significant hazards considerations and therefore that petition and similar petitions would be unaffected by the proposed amendment?
y_.
Mr. Asselstine:
That is correct, Senator.
The Commission has never been able to categorize the spent fuel storage as a no significant hazards consideration.
In conclusion, we observe that although discussion of this issue is sparse, every reference, on both the House and Senate sides, reflects an understanding that expansion and reracking of spent fuel pools are matters which involve significant hazards considerations, cc:
Commissioner Gilinsky Commissioner Ahearne Commissioner Roberts Commissioner Asselstine OPE EDO ELD
.