ML20040G262
| ML20040G262 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 02/10/1982 |
| From: | Stello V Committee To Review Generic Requirements |
| To: | Eisenhut D, Jordan E, Mausshardt D NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE), NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS), Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8202120059 | |
| Download: ML20040G262 (26) | |
Text
FEB 101982
/ gd _ m.
v s
n-
- xqx,
~, ;-
x-P
/
[Q HEMORANDUM FOR: Darrell G. Eisenhut, NRR if
- N F
v Edward L. Jordan, IE d
Donald B. Mausshardt, HMSS
'4
- ' q;q,q e 7
s Clemens J. Heltemes, Jr., AEOD
'T,-
~3.[s^
Robert H. Bernero, RES
.A Joseph Scinto, ELD v ";7 [i FROM:
Victor Stello, Jr.
Deputy Executive Director Regional Operations and Generic Requirements
SUBJECT:
AGENDA ITEM (BRIEFING) FOR CRGR - POST CP CHANGE RULE Enclosed is reference material for your infonnation concerning the proposed post-construction permit change rule to be considered by the CRGR. Two documents are provided:
- 1) a brief current status summary of the issue
- 2) a copy of an 01-08-82 draft of a letter from W. Dircks to the Comissioners concerning the proposed rule.
4 Current plans are to place this matter on the CRGR agenda as a briefing item for meeting #8.
Original :igac4 g htor Stellog Victor Stello, Jr.
Deputy Executive Director Regional Operations and Generic Requirements
Enclosures:
As stated l
l l
Distribution VStello l
TEMurley THCox l
DEDR0GR cf Central File 82-6/3 PDR(NRG/CRGR) 8202120059 820210 PDR REVGP NRCCRGR O
PDR l
K-00/
n ornce> Afd.
.b.
..D
.DE,D$,0,G,R,,,,,,,
,,,((f,,,,,,,,,.,,,
i suancut >
,.Cox;pab....
- y........
.S.t.l.1p...........
...............Q..t /6.. 2..?S.6R
. 2./.d,./.8. 2...
- 2../..... 8. 2......
- 2../...../. 8. 2.......
oart >
enc rosu ais tia-so) hacu o24o OFFICIAL RECORD COPY usceo-m i-m.m
2/1/82 BRIEFING ITEM:
Post CP Change Rule Identification Briefing for proposed rulemaking action concerning design and other changes by applicant after CP issuance. This rule would be similar in effect to 10 CFR 50.59, but would provide inspectability of alterations that were effected after CP issuance. The briefing status of this issue means, in part, that a complete CRGR review package, in accordance with the CRGR charter, has not been submitted for review.
Description Applies to all holders of a construction permit.
Objective (s)_
Develop procedures (i.e. a rule) to clarify those conditions that would allow a CP holder to depart from the characteristics disclosed during the CP proceedings, i.e. whether a change in facility design requires NRC approval, or only prior notification, or may be accomplished without prior notification.
Develop a corporate memory of the types of alterations allowed from those disclosed during the CP proceedings aha to inform the public and nuclear community of them.
Background
Secy-80-90 dated 2/14/80.
Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) -
45 FR81602, dated 12/11/80.
- ED0 memo dated 3/4/81, provided summary of the comments contained in 22 letters received in response to ANPR.
6
'SECY-81-280 dated 5/4/81, staff proposal that delayed indefinitely the rule on Post CP changes.
It provided an example, Bailey (NIPSC), where the CP holder desired to change from "long" piling to "short" piling without a CP amendment.
- 3 of 4 alternatives offered in the commission paper dated (encl. (5)) are derived from Secy-80-90 and ANPR-45 FR81602. The staff -
recommends approval of recommendation provided on page 11 of this enclosure. Also see pps 2 and 5-10.
Basis This is a legal issue, that is neither the Atomic Energy Act nor the Commission's regulations 1
clearly articulate the types of changes which require the holder of a CP to obtain prior NRC approval, formal or informal. One aspect of the Bailey "short" pilings litigation is the Commission's authority, in the absence of clearly articulated standards for determining when a CP amendment is required.
Contacts Spokesman :
W.E. Campbell (35860)
S ponsor:
R. Bernero, Director, Division of Risk Analysis, RES CRGR:
Tom Cox, 24357
Key Issues A. Management Propose a rule change that would (a) allow the CP holder to alter the characteristics of a facility from those disclosed during the proceedings without prior Commission awareness, if the licensee believes a specific condition stated below is met; (b) require such holder to propose an amendment to the CP if the stated condition is not met; and (c) require such holder to " consult" with the Commission staff prior to the implementation of any characteristic alteration if the licensee cannot determine if the st'ated condition is met. The condition would be whether implementation of the characteristic would alter the Staff's conclusion that was made l
during the CP proceedings.
B. Costs Total cost for implementation of the proposed approach is in the range of $
The safety benefits need to be quantified, if the proposed approach is accepted.
C. Implementation l
Immediate upon issuance of the final Rule.
Recommendations Approve the proposed approach offered in enclosure (5).
)
a
- \\. '
+
y,-
N OW
/,
o
\\f
%y 9
p y-For:
The Commissioners From:
William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations
Subject:
Post Construction Permit Change Rule
Purpose:
To forward for Commis:: ion action a proposed rule concerning the procedures relating to post-CP (construction permit) changes.
Category:
This paper is a major policy question.
Resource estimates are category I, that is preliminary.
Issue:
How to clarify which, if any, design or other changes - proposed by a CP holder require an amendment to the CP, or require only prior notification to the NRC or which may be accomplished without a prior notification.
This clarification by rule-1 making is required by SECY memorandum dated June 30, 1981.
Decision Criteria:
1)
The impact of the proposed action on the common defense l
and security, on the health and safety of the public l
and on the environment.
l 2)
The impact on the licensing process of the Commission becoming involved in the Post-CP change process at an earlier stage than the current involvement which is at the stage of application for an operating license.
(7;(o M,
3)
The impact of the action on the resources of the Commission.
T mNo, RG S au) 29 n w& L Mter:GLL je
.l t
JAN 8 1S32 The Commissioners Alternatives:
Four alternatives are provided for the Commission's consideration. These alternatives are:
1)
Maintain the status quo.
2)
Develop a rule that would establish general criteria for determining which design or other changes proposed by the CP holder require either a CP amendment or prior Commission notification.
3)
Develop a rule that would establish specific criteria for determining which design or other changes proposed by the CP holder require either a CP amendment or prior Commission notification.
4)
Develop a rule for design or other changes proposed by a CP holder that would (a) establish a criterion j
for determining if a CP amendment is required, and (b) establish administrative procedures to inform NRC of the changes accomplished that do not meet the criterion.
Discussion:
The historical backgrounl # this issue has been thoroughly treated in previous Commission papers, e.g., SECY-80-90 dated February 14, 1980. The historical portion of that paper is attached as Enclosure 1.
The staff recommendation f
of that paper was approved by the Commission and on
____-m
JAN 819G2 The Commissioners -
December 11, 1980 an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking G~ so,,{r
<p u~
(ANPR)waspublished.(45FR81602).
By ED0 memorandum dated March 4,1981 the Commission was provided a summary of the comments contained in the twenty-two letters that A,c-p m Q e ANPR.
The-comment were received in. response to t!)L'A e n A N o.w'A k
~
P&
summary.-is-attached e rIn (closure 2.
ess The previous attempts at rulemaking in-this matter have rM A
~4.ro ce+1 not been successful for a.nuniber-of-reasons, for-exam,ple,
.ld c.nsk the proposals appeared so general that.a CP holder would A eA.
fu not be-able-to determine what issues were required t+-be s,. G,<.;..
o d.Ve.n d G ~ 3:v,y c h ww-submitted-od.the' proposals appear-ed so specific that the we sta,ff felt all 90tentially important issues could not -be-foreseen and therefore tha-t could not be included in the rulemaking. The Commission and its predecessor, the Atomic Energy Commission, and the CP holders have seen the need to add, eliminate or modify portions of the facility subsequent to the issuance of a CP. The responsibility
, u. e.
for evaluating the effect of information related to sah
- AA.
e actions that^becomes available after issuance of a CP g has not been the sole domain of the Commission,but has been and continues to be a responsibility shared with the CP holder.
10 CFR 50.109, among other things codifies the Commission's policy.in regard to additions, clinination, or up..v4 h3b modifications tha't-the Commission. requires.
,a f.eb/ m w rw -r,q Wew$ 5 Y*
MY s
PAN 6 522 1.
The Commissioners,
Title 10 Chapter I is, for all intents and purposes, silent in regard to the extent of the additions, eliminations or.
modification that the permit holder may make stbsequent to the issuance of the CP and prior to the application'for an OL (operating license).
Whe application for an OL is made, the CP holder must include the information pertinent to the application that has been developed since issuance of the CP. There have been very few CP amendments for other than extension of the period of construction. An example of an issue that resulted in such an amendment was the deletion of the Vogtle (Georgia Power Company, 50-424/435) enclosure building.
At Nine Mile Point (N'iagra Mohaawk Pouer Corp.),
CRRP-ll2) the NRC technical staff felt a CP amendment was appropriate when the CP holder, without prio'r>NRC, knowledge i
or approval changed from the NRC approved one'-through cooling to a closed cycle cooling involving a natural draft cooling tower.
I lieu of a CP amendment this issue is' scheduled' to be addressed as part of the environmental. statement duhing the OL review. At Bailly (Northern Indiana Public Service Company, 50-367) the CP holder desired to change from "long",
pilings to "short" pilings without a CP amendment. This issue became moot when the construction was terminated.
There are numerous other examples of issues that some por'ti n of the staff felt that an amendment should have been subm'itte.
I
\\
N
,a
'(.
JAN 8 1932 TheCommissionerI
-5_
s Three of the four alternatives are derived from SECY-80 and the ANPR. The Commission has directed that rulemaking be accompl$shed,50 Alternative 1, maintain the status quo, is included only as a limiting alternative. Alternatives 2 and 3 are also drawn from the previously cited documents.
Alternative 4 ds a new approach that wo'uid continue to allow a CP' holder to make design and other. changes without securing an amendment unless the change would have altered
' the oukome of'the CP proceeding. The alternative is 4
patterded after the 10 CFR 50.59 which allows the holder Mf6 o, among other things, make changes' in the facility Mch
' 'wlthout prior Commission ss'Onlers the action involves 6'
4 s MI'M an unieviewed safety question or a change to the technical secifications. The criteria based'on the technical speci-l x
s fications are detailed and specific but the criterion of l
1 "unreviewed safety question'"is generaf an'd non-specific.
m Alternatives Alternative 1.
Maintain the status quo.
Pro: (1)
Provides applicants and the Commission substantial l
flexibility during the length 9; construction process.
(2)
Does not require the Staff to p'rocess numerous minor changes.
m.
J m
8 JM 81982
~
The Commissioners -
(3) Avoids time-consuming contested hearings on minor or unimportant matters, i.e., matters not involving changes to the principal criteria.
(4) Allows for making changes in implementation of
~
the final design as well as changes in light of new technology.
/
Con: (1) May appear to some to be arbitrary and capricious; allows for conflicting opinions and time-consuming arguments about the requirements associated with a CP (particularly with regard to whether a permittee is bou'nd by representations made in its application, including the PSAR, and the hearing record); and does not provide the public with a clear basis for understanding NRC regulatory practice.
(2) Provides no objective criteria to regulate facility design changes during contruction and no definitive guidance as to when a CP amendment is required.
(3) Because " principal architectural and engineering criteria" are not defined, allows CP holders substantial discretion to depart from design and engineering features in the PSAR.
~
6
Jul 81932 The Comn$1ssioners
_7 (4) Provides no basis for IE enforcement of CP
~
requirements.
(5)
Is unfair to litigants in CP hearings, for it prompts them to litigate every detail in order to bind an applicant and provides no ground rules about the changes a permittee may make after a hearing (in fact allowing the Staff and permittee to make numerous changes outside the purview of litigants).
Alternative 2.
Develop a rule that would establish general criteria for determining which design or other changes proposed by the CP holder require either a CP amendment or prior Commission notification.
Pro: (1) Avoids the necessity developing a list of specific criteria, for example, principal archi-7 f
tectural and engineering features, which cm:la turn out to be a long process.
(2)
Places the burden and responsibility on CP holders in a manner similar to 5 50.59, thus allowing the Staff to conserve its resources.
(3)
Permits some latitude in regulatory decisions.
l l
JAN 6 232
~
," The Commissioners i
Con _: (1) Leaves some room for interpretation by CP
-holders and the Staff, and does not place the responsibility on the Staff, where, some believe, it should be placed.
i (2) 11akes IE enforcement of CP requirements difficult by allowing for " broader" interpretations.
I Alternative 3_.
Develop a rule that would establish specific criteria for determining which design or otehr changes proposed by the CP holder require either a CP amendment or prior Commission notification.
1 Pro: (1) Binds a permittee to those criteria the Comission I
considers significant, while allowing it freedom (at the risk of disapproval at the operating 1
license stage) to depart from any provisions of the application except stated criteria.
(2) Provides a more defined basis to assess whether f
or not post-CP facility changes require an amendment.
(3) Provides a clear basis on which IE can enforce I
requirements.
i e
-,. - -, +
-w*
,.v.e m
,. - -,.. ~ -
--.------m,
--,-r---,--r-----
JRil 81392 The Commissioners 4 (4) Provides the public with a more precise description of NRC regulatory practice and resolves conflicting opinions.
Alternative 4.
Develop a rule for design or other changes proposedbyaCPholderthatwould(a)establishjtcriterion for determining if a CP amendment is required, and (b) establish administrative procedures to inform NRC of the changes accomplished that do not meet the criterion.
Pro: (1)
Established a meaningful criterion for the determi-nation of which deviations require an amendment.
(2)
Involves NRC in the decision making process related to significant deviation at a more timely phase.
(3) Should minimize the extent of the OL hearing process since many of the post-CP changes would previously have been approved by NRC through the CP amendment process.
(4)
Informs the NRC periodically of the changes that the CP holder has initiated work on without an amendment.
(5) Will provide an acceptable method of change control if "one step licensing" becomes a reality.
- + ' -
g
The Comissioners Con: (1) The criterion is not specific with numerical values but will require judgment by the CP holder in a manner the OL holders currently must use judgment.
(2)
Due to lack of specificity the regulation may prove to be unenforceable.
Resource Estimates:
Alternative 1, status quo, will not require any additional resources or the reprogramming of current resources. Alter-native 2, establishment of general criteria, would require approximately person years of effort - primarily Research personnel and may have an adverse effect on current Research projects. Alternative 3, establishment of specific criteria 3 o j
would require approximately person years of effort -
primarily Research - and will have an adverse effect on y
current RES projects. Alternative 4, criterion that is M'
based on the effect the change would have had on the outcome h
f the CP hearing process, would require person years 9
of effort - primarily Research personnel and may be accomplished without adverse effect on current Research project.
1
\\.
D The Commissioners Reconmendation:
That the Commission:
1)
Approve ublication in the Federal Register for public comment the nature of proposed rulemaking, " Post Construction Permit Changes," Enclosure 3.
%l%I$
- i
(_bj:; Qhus)taff's conclusions set forth in Enclosure 4, which provide the analysis called for by the Periodic and Systematic Review of the Regulations.
The criteria used were derived from Exeuctive Order 12044, which was rescinded on February 17, 1981, by Executive Order 12291 (see memorandum dated February 27, 1981 from L. Bickwit, General Counsel to the Commission). This approach is proposed as an interim procedure pending the Commission's decision on Executive Order 12291.
- 3) $
h /n or er to satisfy the requirement of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 605(b),'
'that this rule, if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial numer of small entities.
The proposed rule affects only the licensing of nuclear power plants.
t
J/itt 8 1932 The Commissioners 4f)
Note a.
That the notice of proposed rulemaking in will be published in the Federal Register allowing 60 days for public comment.
b.
That if, after expiration of the comment period, no significant adverse comments or significant questions have been received and no substantial changes in the text of the rule are indicated, the Executive Director for Operations will arrange for publication of the amendment in final form.
@W c.
The proposed regulatory does not impose any new 4
information collection requirements on those organi-zations that hold a CP or any other organization.
The application, reporting, and record-keeping requirements contained in this regulation have been. approved by the ' Office of Management and Budget, OMB approval No. 3150-0011.
d.
That, pursuant to 9 51.5(o) of Part 51 of the Commission's regulations, neither an environmental impact statement nor a negative declaration need be prepared in connection with the amendment since the amendment is nonsubstantive and insignificant from the standpoint of environmental impact.
JT N 81932 The Commissioners <
e.
That the Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment of the House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, the Subcommittee on Energy Conservation and Power of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, the Subcommittee on Environment, Energy
.and Natural Resources of the House Committee on Government Operations, and the Subcommittee on Nuclear Regulation of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works will be informed by a letter such as Enclosure 5.
f.
That the Federal Register Notice of proposed rule-making will be distributed directly to power reactor licensees / permit holders, applicants for a construc-tion permit for a power reactor, public interest groups, and nuclear steam system suppliers.
g.
That a public annsncement (Enclosure 6) prepared by the Office of Public Al~ airs will be issued when the Federal Register Notice is filed with the Office of the Federal Register.
The Comissioners
-14 Jgpl 81282
,sc b c0.t.[rCI f slw'M U GA g~
[ecommendfffirmatiMatjanopenmeeting.
Scheduling:
William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations
Enclosures:
2-1.
SECY-80-90, pp.1-13 3
2.
Sumary of Comments received on Advance Notice of Proposed Rule-making 3.
Draft Federal Register Notice 4.
Analysis with Respect to Review of Regulations 5.
Draft Congressional letter 6.
Draft Public Announcement
$kG7' *.*d0 tg',.)
, sg p Mw u-3 m adn & '*^d"
g yn
@PCo.nwv.auJLp.cu.
n yms<u i
JAN 8 B92 Nuclear Regulatory Commission
$ 10 CFR Part 50 V Changes Accomplished by the Licensee
~/.e _.... --
['
Subsequent to Granting of a f
Construction Permit-A'%../'-
Agency:
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Action:
Proposed Rule Summary: r
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is considering amending 1
~~~
its regulations in regard to the design and other changes that the holder of a construction permit may accomplish without securing an amendment to the construction permit.
The amendments would provide a criterion against which the holder of the construction could compare the change i
to determine if a construction permit amendment is required.
If the holder of the permit is unable to make the determination, the such determination shall be made by the Commission staff.
i Dates:
~~' Comments should be received by (60 days after publication in the Federal Register).
Comments received after the expiration date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but assurance of consideration cannot be given except as to comments filed on or before that date.
~
9
O JAN 81932 Addresses:
[.
Written comments and suggestions may be mailed to the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Washington, DC 20555, Attention:
Docketing and Service Branch or hand delivered to thhe Docketing and Service Branch, Room :121,1717 H Street, NW, Washington, DC, between 8:30 a.m. and 4:45 p.m. on normal work days.
Copies of comments and suggestions received may be examined in the Commission's Public Document Room, 1717 H Street, NW, Washington, DC.
For Further Information Mbb L ~ Mr. A.- J. ^;e lo, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research.
Contact:
a
'~ ~
~
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, 486o Phone:
301-443-6991.
Supplementary Information:
. JAN 8 1982
~~~~~ Pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of 1950, as amended, the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended, and Section 553 of Title 5 of the United States Code, noted is hereby given that adoption of the following amendments to 10 CFR Part 50 i
l is contemplated. All interested persons who wish to submit comments or suggestions in connection with the proposed amendments should send them to the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, Attention:
Docketing and Service Branch by (60 days after noted in the Federal Register).
Copies of comments received may be examined in the Commission's Public Document Room at 1717 H Street, NW, Washington, DC.
Part 50, " Domestic Licensing of Prediction and Utilization Facilities"
' ~ ~
1)
The authority citation for Part 50 is revised to read as follows:
i AUTHORITY: Secs. 103, 104, 161 (b), 161 (i ), 161 (o), 182, 183, 186, 189, 68 Stat. 936, 937, 948, 949, 950, 953, 954, 955, 956, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2133, 2134, 2201(b),
2201(1),2201(o),2232,2233,2236,2239); secs.201, 202,206,88 Stat.1243,1244,124,6(42U.S.C.,5841, 5842,5846), unless otherwise noted. Section 50.78 also issued under sec.122, 68 Stat. 939 (42 U.S.C. 2152);
f
. 8 B37-p Sec. 234, Pub. L.91-161, 83 Stat. 444 (42 U.S.C. 2282),
Sec 10, Pub. L.95-601, 92 Stat. 2591 (42 U.S.C. 5851).
Sections 50.80-50.81 also issued under sec. 184, 68 Stat.
954,asamended;(42U.S.C.2234).
Sections 50.100-50.102 issued under sec.186, 68 Stat. 955; (42 U.S.C. 2236).
For the purposes of sec. 223, 68 Stat. 958, as amended; (42U.S.C.2273),550.54(1) issued under sec. 161(i),
68 Stat. 949; (42 U.S.C. 2201(i)), SS 50.70, 50.71, and 50.78 issued under sec. 161(o), 68 Stat. 950, as amended; (42 U.S.C. 2201(o)) and the Laws referred to in Appendices.
2)
Paragraph 50.59 is amended to read as follows:
6 50.59 Changes, tests and experiments *
(a) (1) The holder of a license authorizing operation of a production or utilization facility may (i) make changes in the facility as described in the safety analysis report.
(ii) make changes in the procedures as described in the safety analysis report, and (iii) conduct tests or experi-ments not described in the safety analysis report, without prior Commission approval, unless the proposed change, test or experiment involves a change in the technical specifications incorporated in the license or an unreviewed safety ([uestione.
- Comparative text is based on NRC Rules and Regulations with most recent change to B 50.59 in 42 FR 2013.
g e,,
a JAN 8 1962 (2) A proposed change, test, or experiment shall be deemed to involve an unreviewed safety question (i) if the probability of occurrence or the consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment important to safety previously evaluated in the safety analysis report may be increased; or (ii) if a possibility for an accident or malfunction of a different type than any evaluated previously in the safety analysis report may be created; or (iii) if the margin of safety as defined in the basis for any technical specification is reduced.
(3) The holder of a permit authorizing construction of a production or utilization facility may, without prior
- - -. ~ -.. ~..
Commission approval, make c_hanges related to structures, systems, and components important to safety as set forth below. _ Changes are permitted in the design or design methods and procedures and the construction or construc_ tion t
methods and procedures to be used as described in the preliminary safety analysis ' report, as amended, including an,y commitments made duringJ,e _ construction permit proceeding unless the goposed change either (i) involves a_ change in the conditions of the construction permit or
...- _ ~.
y
I 8
4 JAN.
(ii) when considered in conjunction with all p changes would have altered the outcome of the construc _ tion permit proceeding.
If the permit
_............. ~...... ~..........
determine whether a proposed change would have the outcome of the proceeding, such holder sha submit adequate information concerning the che the Commission and the determination shall be the Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor or th; Office-,of Nuclear Material Safety and '.
--. - - ~ ~ ~.. - - ~...
... ~.........
a,sappyopdate;,,
(b) The' holder of a license authorizing oper<
shall maintain records of changes in the faci l
changes in procedures made pursuant to this e i
to the extent that such changes constitute ch the facility as described in the safety analy or constitute changes in procedures as descri safety analysis report.
The holder of a lice l
operation (11eensee] shall also maintain recc and experiments carried out pursuant to parac l
of this section. These records shall includt safety evaluation which provides the bases f<
i mination that the change, test or experiment lI involve an unreviewed safety question. The 1 9
l 't 1
JAN 81932
' permit authorizing construction shall maintain records of all changes that ar,e_,a.qc_qmp.11shed.pyrgant tp, e
paragraph (a). These records shall include a writt_en_
evaluation tha,tarovides the_ bases for the determination that the change wheD_.cnnsidered.with aR.pr,_ int.Sbang,es would not have altered the outcome of the construction permit proceeding.
[The] gicensees shall furnish to the appropriate NRC Regional Office shown in Appendix D of Part 20 of this chapter with a copy to the Director of Inspection and Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, annually or at such shorter inte/vals as may be specified in the license, a report containing a brief description of such changes, tests, and experiments a summary of the [, safety] evaluation of each. Any report submitted by a licensee pursuant to this paragraph will be made a part of the public record of the licensing proceeding.
In addition to a signed I
original, 39 copies of each report of changes,in a facility of the type described in 6 50.21(b) or E 50.22 or a testing facility, and 12 copies of each report of changes in any other facility, shall be filed. The records of changes in the facility shall be maintained until the date of termination of the license and records 0
I JAN 8 E32 of changes in procedures and records of tests and experiments shall be maintained for a period of five years. The records of changes made by the holder of a construction permit shall be retained for at least 3 years after issuance of a license authorizing fuH power operation of a power reactor and for at least 3
- = ~
years after issuance of an operating license for other facilities.
(c) The holder of a license authorizing operation of a production of utilization facility who desires (1) a change in technical specifications or (2) to make a change in the facility or the procedures described in the safety analysis report, which involve an unreviewed safety question or a change in technical specifications, shall submit an application for amendment of the operating
[his] license pursuant to 5 50.90. The holder of a permit authorizing construction of a production or utilization facility who desires to accomplish a change
---m_.._..~_,...,,._
that either would change a condition of the construction permit or would have altered the outcome of the construc-tion permit proceeding, as determined by the holder of the permit or the Director of the Office of fluclear Reactor Regulation or the Office of tiuclear Material Safety and Safeggrd,s shall submit an application for amendment of m
the construction permit pursuant to 5 50.90..
1
.I