ML19323F383
| ML19323F383 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Davis Besse  |
| Issue date: | 05/02/1980 |
| From: | Rouse L NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | Deuster R EMVNFWV, NUCLEAR FUEL SERVICES, INC. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8005280906 | |
| Download: ML19323F383 (3) | |
Text
<
4G Ctc g,.
jo UNITED STATES g
y g
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
.*g
- E WASHING TON, D. C. 20555 MAY 2 I330
.....f
/
Docket No. 50-501 Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc.
ATTU: Mr. Ralph W. Deuster, President 6000 Executive Boulevard, Suite 600 Rockville, MD 20852 Gentlemen:
On Friday, March 28, 1980 the NRC had published in the Federal Register proposed amendments to its regulations dealing with determination of no significant hazards consideration. The proposed amendments result from a petition for rule making (PRM 50-17) filed on May 7,1976 requesting that criteria be specified to determine when no significant hazards consideration is involved.
Since your activities could be subject to the proposed rule changes, we thought that you might be interested in this matter.
If you wish to provide comments, please note that the comment period expires on May 27, 1980.
In case you had not seen the Federal Register Notice when it was published last month, a copy is enclosed with this letter.
Sincerely, Leland C. Rouse, Chief -
Advanced Fuel and Spent Fuel Licensing Branch Division of Fuel Cycle and Material Safety
Enclosure:
Federal Register Notice dtd 3/28/80 8005280 Cpg
Federal Register / Vol. 45. No. 62 / Friday. March 28. 1980 / Proposed Rules NUCLEAR REGULATORY Utilization Facilities." The purpose of The petitioners' proposed COMMISSION the amendments is to revise amendments to the regulations would il 2.105(a)(3). 50.58(b) and 50.91 to require that the staff take into to CFR Parts 2 and 50 specify crrteria for determining whether consideration. in determining whether a No Sagnificant Hazards Consideration a proposed amendment to an operating proposed amendment to an operating license or to a construction permit for a license involves a significant hazards actacr. Nuclear Regulatory commercial or other large production or consideration whether operation of the Commission.
utilization facility (one licensed under plant under the proposed license acT1ose Proposed rule.
section 103 or 104(b)): or a testing amendment will(1) substantially facility licensed under 104(c) of the increase the probability or sVMMAnr.The Nuclear Regulatory Atomic Energy Act of1954 as amended consequences of a mafor credible Commission is proposing to amend its
("the Act"). involves no significant reactor accident or (2) decrease the regulations to specify criteria for hazards consideration.De proposed margins of safety substantially below determining whether a proposed amendments result from a petition for those previously evaluated for the plant amendment to an operating license or to rulemaking (PRM 50-17) submitted by and below those approved for existing a construction pernit for a commercial letter to the Secretary of the licenses. It is proposed that,if the staff or large production or utilization facility Commission on May 7.1970, by Mr.
reaches a negative conclusion as to both invohes no significant hazards Robert Iowenstein of the law offices of of these criteria, the proposed consideration. If the Commission Lowenstein. Newman. Reis and amendment shall be considered not to determines that no significant hazards Axcitad. acting on behalf of the Boston - involve a significant hazards -
consideration is involved,it may issue an amendment to an operating license or Edison Company. Florida Power and consideration.
Ught Company and Iowa Electric Light ne petition (Docket 50-17] was.
to a construction permit and then publish a notice of the amendment in the and Power Company.ne petitioners published for comment in the Federal Federal Register. Otherwise, it must request the Nuclear Regulatory '
Register on June 14.1976 (41 FR 24006).
Commission to amend to CFR Part 2.
Comments have been received from publish the notice at least 30 days
" Rules of Practice for Domestic eight persons, four of whom are in favor before the amendment is issued.
Ucensing Proceedings." and to CFR Part of granting the petition and four of The proposed amendments to the.
regulations are in response to a petition
- 50. " Domestic Ucensing of Production whom are opposed.Those in favor for rulemaking filed on May 7.1976. by and Utilization Facilities." with respect generally argued that the petitioners' to the issuance of amendments to proposed amendments,if adopted.
Mr. Robert Lowenstein on behalf of three petitioners (Boston Edison operating licenses for production and would help eliminate unnecessary 4
utilization facilities.
delays in effecting amendments to an Company. Morida Power and Ught Company, and towa Electric Ught and Section 189a of the Act provides that, operating license. Those opposed upon thirty days notice published in the generally argued that the petitioners' Power Company) requesting that criteria be specified to determine when no Federal Register. the Commission may proposed amendments would be scmficant hazards consideration is issue an operating license or an contrary to congressional intent since involved.
amendment to an operating license or an they would tend to eliminate public amendment to a construction permit for participation. Opposing arguments were oaTc Comment period expires May 27 a facility licensed under section 103 or
- also made to the effect that the 1980.
104(b) or a testing facility licensed petitioners' proposed amendments accmtsses: All interested persons who under section 104(c) without a public would change the standard of review desire to submit written comments or hearing if no hearing is requested by any from one of finding "non-significants" to suggestions for consideration in interested person. However, i 189a one of finding " substantial change." thus connection with the proposed permits the Commission to dispense -
shifting the burden of proof. One amendments should send them to the with such thirty days notice and Federal opposing commenter also stated that the Secretary of the Commission. U.S.
Register publication with respect to the amendments could result in lengthy Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Issuance of an amendment to a litigation over the meanings of the Washington. D.C. 20555. Attention:
construction permit or an amendment to criteria proposed by the petitioners.
Docketing and Service Branch by May an operating license upon a After consideration of the petitioners' 27.19a0. Copies of comments received determination by the Commission that proposed amendments and public on the proposed rulemaking and the amendment involves no significant comments received the Commission comments received on the petition for hazards consideration. In cases where believes that the licensing process can rulemaking (PRM 50-17) may be the Commission determines that there is be improved by specifying criteria with exam'ned in the Commission's Public no significant hazards consideration. the. respect to the meaning of "no significant Document Room at 1717 H Street. N.W.
Commission may issue the amendment ' hazards consideration."The Washington. D.C.
and then publish a notice in the Federal Commission. however. does not' agree FOR FURTHUt INFORseaT10N CONTACT:
Register. In such cases, interested with the petitioners' proposed criteria Mr. W. E. Campbell. Jr Office of members of the public who wish to because of the limitation to " major Standards Development. U.S. Nuclear object to the amendment and request a credible reactor accidents" and their Retrulatory Commission. Washington.
hearing may do so, but a request for failure to include accidents of a type D.C. :0555. Phone 301-40-5913.
hearing does not. by itself, suspend the different from those previously sUPetIMENTARY INFOResAT1oec The effectiveness of the amendment.
evaluat' d.
e Nuclear Regulatory Commission has Sections 50.58(b) and 50.91.10 CFR of During the past several years, the under consideration amendments to its the Commission's regulations Staff has been guided in reaching its regulations in 10 CFR Part 2. " Rules of implementing i 189a contain no criteria findings with respect to "no significant P 'actice for Domestic Licensing for detmnining when an amendment hazards consideration" by staff criteria Proceedings." and 10 CFR Part 50.
involves no significant hazards and examples of amendments likely to
" Domestic Ucensing of Production and consideration.
involve, and not likely to m, volve.
/
e Federal R,egister / Vol. 45. No. 62 / Friday. March 28, 1980 / Proposed Rules significant hazards considerations.
the technical specifications and 104(c) shall be based on the criteria set These criteria and examples have been regulations are not significantly forth in i 50.91(b) of this chapter; or".
changed. and such methods previously promulgated within the Staff and have have been found acceptable by the NRC. PART 50-DOMESTIC UCENSING OF proven useful to the Staff.The Commission believes it would be useful (h) A relief granted upon PRODUCTION AND UT1UZATION to consider incorporating these criteria demonstration of acceptable operation FACIUTIES into the Commission's regulations for from an operating restriction that was 35&54 [ Amended]
use in determining whether a proposed imposed because acceptable operation amendment to an operating license or to was not yet demonstrated.
- 2. Paragraph 50.58(b) of to CFR Part 50 a construction permit of any production (v) A relief granted upon satisfactory is amended by revising the last sentence or utilization facility involves no completion of construction from an to read:"If the Commission finds that no significant hazards consideration, operating restriction that was imposed significant hazards consideration is Subsequent to the resolution of the because the facility construction was presented by an application for an comments received on the proposed rule not yet completed satisfactorily, amendment to a construction permit or the Commission intends to incorporate (vi) A change which either increases operating license. considering the into a Regulatory Guide the examples the probability or consequences of a criteria set forth in i 50.91(b). it may previously analyzed accident or reduces dispense with such notice and associated with the criteria.
Examples of amendments that are a :afety margin but for which the results publication and may issue the considered likely to involve significant of the change are within regulation amendment."
hazards consideration are listed below, ageeptance criteria: for example 3.10 CFR Part 50,5 50.91is amended (1) A significant relaxation of the resulting from the application if a small b'Y d**I "*U"8 the Present paragraph 8
cnteria used to establish safety limits.
refinement of a previously used as Paragraph "(a) and adding new, (ii) A significant relaxation of the calculational model or desi method.
bases for limiting safety system settings (vii) A change to make a cense
{agraphs (b) and(c) to read as 0"*
or limiting conditions for operation.
conform to changes in the regulations.
(iii) A significant relaxation in limiting (viii) An extension of the date. in a l 50.31 leeuence of n c :...c conditions for operation not construction permit, for the completion (a)In determining whether,,,
accompanied by compensatory changes, of construction.
conditions, or actions that maintain a It should be noted that in the event an (b)In making a determination that a commensurate level of safety, amendment to an operating license or proposed amendment to a license or (iv) Renewal of an operating license.
construction permit involves no construction pennit involves no.
(v) For a nuclear reactor, an increase significant hazards consideration, the signifinant hazards consideration, the in authorized maximum core power staff will cause a notice of proposed Commlesion will consider whhther level not previously publicly noticed.
actiors to be published in the Federal operatio.u of the facility in accordance (vi) A change to technical Register prior to acting on the with the pmposed amendment would (1) specifications involving a significant amendment when it is determlaed.
Involve a significant increase in the unreviewed safety question.
pursuant to 2.105(a)(4), that an probability or coosequences of an Examples of amendments that are opportunity for a public hearing should accident previously evaluated. (2) ceate considered not likely to involve be afforded.
the possibility of an accident of a type significant hazards consideration are Pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of different from any evaluated previously, listed below.
1954, as amended, and section 553 of or (3) involve a significant reduction in a (1) A purely administrative change to title 5 of the United States Code, notice margin of safety, technical specifications; for example, a is hereby given that adoption of the
. (c)If the Commission reaches a change to the Definitions Sections, following amendments to to CFR Part 2 negative conclusion on all criteria set correction of an error, or a change in-and 10 CFR Part 50 is contemplated.
forth in (b)(1). (2) and (3)of this section, Posed amendment shallbe the P}ered toinvolve no significant nomenclature.
PART 2-RULES OF PRACTICE FOR
,,,,i (ii) A change that constitutes an DOMESTIC IJCENSING PROCEEDING bM ddWE additionallimitation, restriction, or control nei presently included in the 2, paragraph 2.105f =)(3) of to CFR Part technical specifications; for example a 2 is revised to read a follows:
(Secs.1611.190 as amended. Pub. I.83-703. e6 Stat. 948. 055. Pub. L 85-258. 71 Stat. 570 (42 more a tringent surveillance requirement.
(iii) For a nuclear power reaetor, a i 2.105 Notice of proposed action.
U.S.C. 2201, 2.39):Sec. 201. Pub. L 93438. 88 Stat. u43 (42 U.S.C. 5841))
change resulting from a nuclear reactor (a) * *
- core rebading if no fuel assemblies (3) An amendment of alicense Dated at Washington.D.C this 21st day of significantly different from those found specified in paragraph (a)(1) or (2) of
- March.1980.
previously acceptable to the NRC for a this section and which involves a For the Nuclear Regulatory (Wssion.
significant hazards consideration. The i
previous core at the facility in question
. determination of significant hazards Samuel J. Chitk.
are involved.This assumes that no significant changes are made to the consideration for production and Secrutcry of the Commiulon.
acceptance criteria for the technical utilization facilities licensed under
. tru ooc. ssem ru.o-e-am e.s mi specifications. the analytical methods sections 103 and 104(b) of the Act or a suo coot noe.ews I
l used to demonstrate conformance with testing facility licensed under section
.