ML19345F461
| ML19345F461 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 12/19/1980 |
| From: | Lewis S NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Englehardt T NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19345F445 | List: |
| References | |
| AA61-2-181, NUDOCS 8102170517 | |
| Download: ML19345F461 (1) | |
Text
.
(3 V
December 19, 1980 I
Note to: Tom Engelhardt From:
Stephen H. Lewis Thru:
Larry chandler
Subject:
IMPACT OF SHOLLY ON LICENSING ACTIONS PROPOSED TO BE TAKEN WITHOUT A LICENSE AMENDMENT At Joe Scinto's request, I am bringing to your attention a question which has arisen with respect to the attached proposed licensing action on TMI-2. The question arises because of the statement in Sholly that any Commission action which authorizes "any significant change in the operation of a nuclear facility" (slip o2. at 23) requires an implementing license amendment.
In this proposed action, the Staff would amend the Recovery Operations Plan to specify certain additional reactor coolant chemistry surveillance requirements.
The conditions of the February 11, 1980 Order of the Director, NRR, pursuant to which the facility is currently being maintained, provide that 1.2.
The Recovery Operations Plan shall describe unit Operations Requirements for the implementation of these Technical Specifica-tions. This plan, and changes thereto, shall be approved by the Comission prior to implementation.
Section 4.0.1 of these conditions provides that Surveillance Requirements shall be performed in accordance with the Recovery Operations Plan, but that the plan shall not be considered a part of the Technical Specifications.
Based upon the fact that the Plan is not part of the Technical Specifications, the Staff proposes to implement the amendment to the Plan without the necessity of seeking an amendment to the license.
In support of its action the Staff has prepared an Evaluation.
In order to justify the manner in which this action is proposed to be undertaken, the Evaluation should contain a finding that the action does not authorize "any significant change in the operation" of the
~
facility. Such a finding is presently lacking.
Actions which the Staff proposes to undertake without license amendments will occur in many other cases and it may be desirable, therefore, to develop some l
guidance to the Staff regarding the necessity to make the finding of no sig-nificant change in the operation of the facility.
Joe Scinto also suggested that Mr. Shapar might want to focus on this question since he has been closely involved in the interpretation of the Sholly decisien.
l U+ A N. L,a y
Stephen H. Lewis 81021705??
.-