ML20133P918
| ML20133P918 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 08/05/1985 |
| From: | Dircks W NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | Simon P SENATE |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20133P921 | List: |
| References | |
| FRN-48FR14864, RULE-PR-50 NUDOCS 8508140531 | |
| Download: ML20133P918 (8) | |
Text
'
The Honorable Paul Simon United States Senator 230 South
Dearborn Street,
- 3892 Chicago, Illinois 60604
Dear Senator Simon:
This is in response to your letter of July 17, 1985 to Mr. Trammell of the NRC staff which asked several questions about the NRC rule that permits deviations from the technical specifications for a nuclear plant under certain emergency circumstances.
We have enclosed a copy of the Statement of Consideration which was published with the rule when it was issued. We believe you will find the enclosure fully responsive to your questions.
Sincerely, (Signed) T. K, Y
/ William J. Dircks D
Executive Director for Operations
Enclosure:
Statement of Consideration Distribution:
Central File NRC & LPDRs w/cpy of incoming ED0 #000852 ED0 Reading HDenton/DEisenut ORB #3 Green ticket file (w/ copy of incoming)
OELD OCA(3)
SECY(3)
WDircks LMulley Glainas/DNottingham HThompson/MJambor CTrammell w/cy of incoming PKreutzer ORB #3 Rdg
AD:0R:DLY f(BIl
(
PKreutzer CTrammell;ef EButcher GCunningham Glainas DE!T t
O 7/26/85 7/26/85 7/26/85 7/31/85 7/30/85
%/85
,/
$$"on h6 Sks i
A/ /85 g/f /85
/t</85
/)
0
}p 8508140531 G50805 PDR ORG EUSSEN PDR
The Honorable Paul Simon United. States Senat y Attention: John Weinberger 230 South
Dearborn Street,
- 3892 Chicago, Illinois 60604
Dear Senator Simon:
This is in response to your letter of July 17, 1985 to Mr. Trannell of the NRC~ staff which asked several questions about the NRC rule that permits deviations from the technical specifications for a nuclear plant under certain emergency circumstances.
We have enclosed a copy of the Statement of Consideration which was published with the rule when it was issued. We believe you will find the enclosure fully responsive to your questions.
Sincerely, N
\\,
William J Dircks Executiv Director for Operations
Enclosure:
Statement of Consideration Distribution:
-Central File NRC & LPDRs w/cpy of incoming ED0 #000852 ED0 Reading HDenton/DEisenut ORB #3 Green ticket file (w/ copy of incoming)
OELD
/
OCA (3)
/
SECY(3) j WDircks
/
LMulley 'h Glainas/DNottingham
.HThompson/MJambor CTrammell w/cy of incoming PKreutzer ORB #3 Rdg d[k1I-ORB # :DL DL OR$
L OELD j AD:
DL NRR fyGo,9 mGL htas DEisenhut her ll;ef Egu er f
7 85
/85 7 /tfo/85 7 /j//85 g/p85
/ /85 D:NRR OCA EDO HDenton WDircks
/ /85
/ /85
/ /85 i.
+ ~ - -.
---.,,-r
PART 90 o STATEMENTS CF C3NSIDERATION submit reports of plan ch'anges which do matters of agency organization and h>48 FR 13966 not decrease safegu rde effectivenese to procedure, notice of proposed PublishwJ 4/1/s3.
NRC regional offices. Ele action is rulemaking and public procedure Effactive 6/1/s3 being taken se part of the thereon an unnecessary under 5 U.S.C.
Implementation of the NRC regional 553. For the same reason good cause licensing program under which exlete for making the amendments responsibility for certain categories of effective upon publication In the Federal
'10 CFR Part 30 action has been delegated to Regional Resister without the customary thirty Adminletrators.The amendments are day notics.
AppIIcebutty of 1.lconee; Conditione accenary to inform curent er Paperwork Reduction Act Statement and TectinicalSpedncanone in an prospective licensees of current NRC Emergency practice and orgenlaation.
He Information collection I
spractive Oafs: February e6 let.
requirements contained in thle
.Nadaar Regulaeosy cea mbE3t5M
gl M ""oE " Sal nnel eds.
OMI
- r 3150-4000.
Safety and Safeguarde. U.S. Nuclear suosiaany:& Nudear Regulatory R:gulatory Commission. Weehington, IJet of Subjede Commission le amendmg its regulations DC, Telephone:(301) 427-4024.
to clarify that all Part 50 licensees may Ipy m y supptausutAny seronasAvioet &
take reasonable action that departs from Nuclear Regu! story Commlulon is Antitrust Clenifiedinformation.Fim a license conditlon or sechnical cmending its regulations concerning the prevention, Intergovernmental relations, specification in en ernersency when this reviews of reactor security and Nuclear power plante and reactora, action is immediately needed to protect contingency plan changes, Penalty. Radiation protection Reactor the public health and safety.ne rule le transportation physical protection plan siting critede. Reporting and being issued because NRC regulatione chinges, and special nuclear material recordkeeping requirements.
currently do not permit deviations from i
f cility security, contingency and ikenee conditions or tedmical g gm,
meterial control and accounting program specifications under any conditiona.
chinges where the plan or program Hazardous materiale-Transportation, Er..ergency altuatione can arise, though.
chinges do not decrease effectiveness.
Nuclear materials, Packaging and during which a lianee condition or e Rese amendmente ere being made to containers. Penalty. Radiation technical speci5 cation =&t proves.J reflect current NRC p actices and protection. Reporting and recordkeeping necessary protective action by the costgned responsibilities under the NRC requirements. Scientific equipment, licensee. N rule allows this action to regional licenelns program.%e revloed Security measures. Special nuclear be taken in ensergency carcumstances.
provisions.10 CFR 50.54 ), and 70.32 material serscTrvs DATt fune 1.1483.
Pument Me awe hrgy Ad pon rumman inronesAfton CoWTACT:
t cet as to henges to ertala test se emnded, the EnerET Charles M.Trammell111. Office of security and con ency plans and Rurganisetlo.: Act ef1974 as amnded.
Nuclear Reactor Regulation. U.S.
materialcontrolen accounting and 5 U.S.C. 552 and $53, the following Nuclear Regulatory Commleston, programe la Regions I and E be seat to amendments to 10 CHL Parte 50 and 70, Washington. D.C.20555 (Telephone:
g gg 8
88 8
" " 8I 8C1 b commencing February 3,1983. As of g
301-492-7380).
October 1.19e3, notification as to supptaastertAny inconuartoec%e rule chinges in certata security and clariflee the regulations in 10 CFR Part contingency plane and material control 50 by providing that a licensee may take and accounting programs In'aB regions reasonable action that departs from a wiu be sent to the cognirent regional
!! cense condition or a technical offi6es. With respect to the spectac specification in an emergency when cctions delegated to the Regional such action is immediately needed to Adminletratore, the revisions to the protect the public health and esfety.
48 FR 8256 regulations are intended to state exactly At present. NRC regulations do not which functione are now eseigned to the Publishes 2/28/s3 permit deviations from license Regional Administrators as their total conditions or technical opedfications 1
responsibility under the Commiseloe's under any circurnstances. Emergencias segtonalisation p era and when these 10 CFR Parts 80 and 70 can arise, though, during which responsibilities become effective, compliance with a license condition or a h basic delegetion of authority for Regional Licensing Reviews technical specification could pmvent Ce Regional AdminIstratore le cofr,etion
(*8','p b!
nd ety n
contained la NRC Manuel Chapter 013e'
%e seraldelegation requires la FR Doc. 83-3326 beginning on page are understandably reluctant to take Seas in the luue of Wedneedey, actione contra to their licensee.
i Netto e a e tr n fe dt b' nel February 0.1983 make the following Absolute comp lance with the license ln corrections.
emergencies can be a barrier to effective Offices.h amendments contained 1
herein "8t th8 '*lulte"8t for such On page 5887, first column. I 70.32 protective action by a licensee supplementaba.
(c)(1) etshth line from the bottom.
Technical specificatione contain s "discribed" should read " described":
wide range of opereting limitations and h changes to 10 CHL 50.54(p) and eecend colamn. paragraph (d), eLxth line.
requiremente concerning actions to be 70.32 c). (d). (e), and )are
"$ 00.22(g)" should read "$ 70.22(g)"t taken if certain systems fall and if none etentive amen ents. M y
. third column. paragraph (g), eighth line, certain arameters are' exceeded.%e i
almply change the entity to which licensees" should read " licensee"; and bulk of echnical speci!! cations are
."in the sixth line from the bottom.
certain notices are sent and the dates devoted to keeping the plant parameters that the change becomes effectige.
"70.30(g)" should med "73.30's)"
within safe bounds and keeping safety Since the amendroents nlate to mainor
(
i April 29,1983 50-SC-80 I
I
f, PART 50 e STATEMENTS OF CONSIDERATION equipment operable during normal clearly indicating that a licensee may
%e rule was published as a proposed operation. However, technical take reasonable action that departs from rule in the Federal Register on August specifications also require the a license conditipn or technical 18,1982 (47 m 35998). A sixty-day implementation of a wide range of specification in en emergency when comment period expired on October te, operating procedures which go into such action is immediately needed to 1982.
great detail as to actions to be taken la protect the public health and safety, A total of thirty-seven responses were l
the couree of operation to maintain ne rule also requires a licensee, received, representing thirty-nine faci!!ty safety. nese procedures are under 6 50.72, to notify the NRC organizations or persons. Respondees based on the various conditions-Operations Center by telephone of included: licensees of power reactore normal. transient and accident emergency circumstances requiring it to (24). individuals (5), research reactor i
conditions--analyzed as part of the take any action that departs from a licensees (2), nuclear steam system
{
licensing process.Nevertheless, license condition or a te.hnical suppliere (2), professional organizations unanticipated circumstances can occur specification. When time permits, the (2); and one response each from: a law during the course of emergencies. nese notification is made before the firm, a State, a labor union, and an circumstances may call for responses protective action is taken; otherwise,it architectural. engineering firm. Copies of
)
1 different from any considered during the is made as soon as possible thereafter.
comments received by the Commission course ofIlcensing-e.g., the n.eed to
%e impact of this reporting requirement in response to the notice of proposed isolate the accumulatore to prevent on licensees is expected to be negligible. rulemaking may be examined in the nitrogen injection to the core while there ne rule follows the recommendation Commission's Public Document Room at was still substantial pressure in the in NUREG-0616," Report of Special 1717 H Street. NW., Wa shington, D.C.
primary system was unforeseen in the Review Group, Office of Inspection and (file PR-50,47 m 35996).
11 censing process before %C-2: thus, the Enforcement on lesson 14arned from
%e vast majority v the commentere techt,Ical specifications prohibited this nree Mlle Island"' the NRC establish (thirty-seven) were in favor of the rule, action. Special circumstances requiring and announce a firm policy regarding Many expressed enthusiastic support.
a deviation from license requirements the app!!cability of the licenu under Only two commentere believed that the are not necessarily tirnited to transienta emergency circumstances, with certain rule should not be adopted.Elght or accidents not analyzed in the exceptions discussed below, commenters believed the rule should be licen,stng process. Special circumstances (e) & rule dou not require that departure issued as proposed. Howeyer, as a.
can arise during emergendes involving from a Ucenu condition or technical result of comments received by othere, multiple equipment failure or colnddent specificadon have the concurrence of b some changes have been made, as accidents where plant emergency most senior ucenaw and NRC personnel discussed below, procedures could be in conflict, or not' arenable at the time before the depann app!! cable to the circumstances. In While the Comunfulon certainly does not One commenter pointed out the similarity between the proposed rule addition, an acddent can take a course p,l Q 3 j,,n p.the genwe conep t
and the so-called " General Prudential
.b different from that visualized when the emergency procedure was written, thus the time should be involved, the rule spedfles Rule" contained in both the that such acuan shall be approved by a International Regulations for Preventing a,
requiring a protective response at beensed senior opwetor as a minimum and Collisions at Sea,1972, and the Irdaad variance with a procedure required to' does not gojnto further detan as to which Navigational Rules Act of1980. He rule be followed by the licensee. Also, additional persons should be involved if time is identicalin each and statn:
performance of routine surveillance pennits or which persons should be involved n,cou i e ve ope a
cdi' of a att d
ao a an al attention of the operating crew from the am emergency or cause the loss of and amplementing Procedures.
drcumstances, including the limitations of
[b] N rule don not require the the vuule involved, which may make a equipment needed for proper protective concurrence of NRC pwoonnel Receiving the departure from thou ruin necouary to avoid action.
" concurrence" or " approve!" of NRC inediate danger. (Rule 2(b)).
Technical specifications or license personnel wo dd amount to a licen**
ne commenter added that a conditions can be amended by NRC, and amendment vetng procedura contrary to the rule is not intended to apply in thou exisung fw emedents.N rule Commanding Officer (of a naval sh!p) le permitted to devista from written rules circumstances where time allows this
%C[I
'[,pUee em e8*
,,, n ded ! Ha to the extent necessary to save h!s ship, process to be followed.ne rule would is not evenable for a bcnnse amendment.
and that there is ample precedent for the apply only to those emergency Requiring the concurrence of NRC personnet proposed NRC rule.
situations where action by the licensee avedable et the time tends to shift the burden It is also very similar to a rule of the is required immediately to protect the of urety from the Heensee to NRC-contrary Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) public health and safety-action which to the rule's intent. It could ateo shift the governing the operation of aircraft.14 may be contrary to a technical burden to NRC personnel on site who may be CFR 91.3, which states that "[ijn an spedfication or a license condition.
unquaMied to concur in e propowd Dcen*"
it is the latent of the rule to allow
- 8**'
emergency requiring immediate action, the pilot in command may deviate from deviations from license requirementa
.Ntmsc. esse i even.bt. to, w.eu.e and any rule * *
- to the extent necessary to only in the spedn! circumstanme e
e.,,g., go, a fa et ratc Public o cm.et nesa, meet thet emergency. Each pilot la described. It is not latended that inF H Soest. Nw, waslunetan D C C.pu. mar command who deviatoe from a rule licensees be allowed to deviate from he p=h.=d thmsh Ib. NRC/GPO Salm Pnyon i
ehett,.upon the requnt of the eee Procedures and other license
(**y
- gg',OMQQbd'O'd
- Administrator, send a written report of G
g,,,3 requirements where these are a
ess-euo w by wadins a chech or me, e,d,
that deviation to the Admintstrator,"
appucabi..
,,.m t.
et n-.m t.
.i ne Commiscon had both as Cene,ai For these reasons, the Comminion M,j o' N'd"p' g 1C'"""'h
Prudential Rule and the FAA rule in believes that there should be a spebtfic am.,uw een redselaww, di.e.t mind when it framed the proposed NRC provision in the Commluion's rules emrum.as om m.emie.
rule. Further, it is clear that Congrees 50 SC 81 April 29,1983
. - = _ _.
l 1
a.
4 i
PART 50 e STATEMENTS OF CONSIDEtlATION believes that liceneses have authority to specific chcomstances surrmmding the tested on both the basis and importance of take whatever action is necessary to event, and that enforcement etendards the Technical Spectficatione. t wonto be i
4 n
would be difficult to frame for the interveted in receivies commente en thw respond t emergencies involving a' imminent thrut to pubhc heetth and unusual ciscumstances under whie the i
i s fety. H.R. Rep. No.97-484. 97th Cong.,
rule might be seed.One conunenter Nineteen comments were received in ad Sess. as (tes2). ne role coddies and pointed est that enforcemen* standards raponse to this request and most all 1
clirifies this authority, would tend to limit actions that could or agreed that such a decision should be in addition to seeking the usual public could not be taken, and thereby serve to made, as a minimen,by a licensed comment as to any aspects of the provide deviation guidance which most senior operator.%ose opposed proposed rule.the Federal Regiment felt wee inappropriate (diocassed expressed the opinion that such 4
Nstice of the proposed rule stated:
above).
concurrence should not be mandatory or The Counmiselon has concluded that thet higher corcurrences should be f
The proposed rule does not provide enforcesnent standards, se such. are not obtained if possible.
eignificant guidance to Part so bceneses for i;
idenufytag those situtions in which needed.%e Comminion agrees that A minor clarifying change to the rule devlet6ans from timenee conditsame er providing one standards would tend to has been made la response to these technacal encifications are allowebne.ha define the decurestances under which comments and another which stated 1
tddition. ahe preposed rule and the the ruk could be used (dedation that the rule was confusing because the suppleasee:ary bierunation does met asetain guidance). As disonesed above, this has first b of th
- d rule standards to be ased by the NRCstafie beenjud to be endesirable i
determining whether to take enfaremmet De does however, corr'tain imp dt enforcer'nent guidance. The NRC paragrspb now reada: "IJcensee action sction against Part 50 licensees e.ho deviate li from licen.e condmons or techni, cal would review a licensee e one of toe rule permitted by paragrsph (m) of this
,,,,g,3,,, g, g,,,,,,,,,g, %
to determine enewre to the fo0 ming section shall be approved as a The Commission particularly enhone typaofpons.
minimum. by a licensed senior conemente en abese two areas.
perator."Rio change makes it clear
%1rty.four comments were received I
ately er adverse
&a a censw takes emergency acuan in response to this request. and moet consequences to the public health and all wed by paragraph (z), such action wire strongly opposed to the anfety?
must be approved by, at least, a Lcensed Commission providmg additional
- b. Was adequate or equivalent eeni r operator acting for the licensaa.
f deviation guidance or enforcamot protective action that le consistent wisir Under the provision, anylicensed senior _
st:ndards.
the license imunediately apparentf operator (lirensed for the unit invalvadj
, As for deviation guidance,one
- c. Was the action muonable? Bued would be su!Ilclent.However, as ana comment, which was opposed to sod.
on information available at the time did commenter pointed out, man menior was typical:"{w]e do not believe that it it serve to protect the public health and bcensee personnel would probably be is feasible to prodde detailed guidance safety? Did the licensee deviate from its evaUsble.1f so ae decasion to depart to to when deviations are permissible.
Bcense only to the extent neceuary to fr m thelicensein an amargency would l
Dewholepurposeof theproposed meet the emergency?
amendments is to provide !!exibility in d.Was there time for as amanAmann pass to them (as higher authorities in the chain of comrnand). lf.hwever, as situations that cannot be antidpoted.
of the license to be approved by NRCy l
Any effort to penvide more detailed Answers to these questions should be emergency requiring prompt merian should occur on a back shift nollema===
stinderds is like!y to defeat that adequa:e to determice if the rule had purpose by unintentionally eurJeding a been viole*ed. Spedfic enforcernene representative higher in the chain of situation in which a deviationle action would have to depend on the command is likely io be available.To j
nuenary or appropriate."
specific circumetences.
require other approvals could serve to,
The Commission agrees with thle Ten persons snede comments to the defeat the purpose of the rule.
j c mment, and feels that any attempt to s&ct that overly critica1 reviews or One commenter stated that the rule i
dIfine in more detail the precise overseolous enforcement action should provide for deviations from the i
circumstances under which a deviation following the use of the rule would NRC regulations as we!! as license le permissible is bound to exclude a cause licensees to hesitate so see the conditions and technical specifications.
circumstance when deviation might be rule. He Commission agrees with these his was intended, and the language of rintirely appropriate.Whereas the commenta.no Commission recogn!ase numerous comments Indicated that this I
conditions under which a deviation le that a hoensee will need to exerdee was understood. Each license issued is all:wed are not ducribed atisngth.
Judgment in applying the rule and in its subject to all applicable rules.
moverthelesa, the deviation criteria are after.the. fact review.it may not agree in reguistions and orders of the quite speca8c the licensee urust be feoed every instance with the licensee's Commission.%1s is stated in the license with an emergency eituationin whid actions. However, enforcement actica itself and also in 10 CFR 50.54[h) es a i
c:mplianae with the license le peelas a for a violation of the rule willnot be condition of the license. Therefore, the barrier to effective protective action and taken unless a licensee's action was rule does apply to NRC rulee, i
j r:pid protective action is needed.
unreasonable considering all the regulations and orders as well.
Sesed on the foregoing and public relevaat drcumstances having to de nree comrcents were received conunents roosived, no danese have with the regarding the applicability of the rule in been made to the rule with aesped to ne Federal ter Notice for the situations where darnage to the facility 4
l the conditiamo muler which he sole may proposed rule contained additional or injury to personnel might be involved.
belevakad.
ce===aaa of Co==lanlanet Gehnaky, in For the reasons discuuedabove the j
,In reopease to the Causeisoise's which he eteted:
rule does not contain explicit devistion l
guldence or examples. Nevertheless, the for assunsats se the ased fee Ibelieve abe Aadaw as opeete asissde abe oreernes standards.neet Technleal specifications should be made by a threat of injury to personnel would be j
comimentore stated that the matter of sealer rescear operator sinos I underseemd an appropriate example. As forinvoking enfor===as beeld be based en the that smetor operators are sat wetoed er the rule to prevent damage to the facility a
I k
i 4
April 29,1983 50 SC.82 a
PART 50 e STATEMENTS OF CONSIDERATION or machinery.it would depend on the provided adequate safeguards against course of heenslag) and the specific circumstances of the emergency, abuu.
admf ulbility of intervonor contentions he rule dou not apply to machinery or Two coenmentere suggested that that are denied litigation at a hearing on the facility.per se. but would apply if written notice to the Commleston of use the bests that such senarios an such damage is tied to a poutble of the rule should be mandatory. It is inaedible or so unhkaly as to be bemd adverse effect on pub!!c health and highly likely that a written report would from litigation.
i nafety.
be requind since most violations of th*
One commentu suggested that b
!!cenu or technical specifications do no Conunluton,in ludag this rule.
Commlesion emphasize the permissive require a written report.To the extent taku no poeltion whatevw as to b nature of the rule by exple'ning that its that the Commleolon's information merit of any contention involving use le totally discretfonary, that needs related to the event are not met
- emergency circumstances that could be licensees need not invokeit even in an the Commission would require postulated at a nuclear facility. Rabr.
emergency, and that failure to invoke additional information, as provided for es,ge anumu est speci,3 the rule would not constitute a violation in the rule. A mandalory written report circumstancu have occurred which of NRC requirements for which an is therefore not deemed essential.
maku un of the rule necenary to enforcement action may be brought.
One commenter etsted that the protect the public health and safety.
1
%1e comment was not accepted.
reporting requirement "When time A commenter suggested that use of
)
Whereas the language of the rule is permits. the notification (of the'un of the rule be tied to the " general permissive in nature licensees are the rule) shall be made before the emusscy" emergency classification, responsible for opwe ting their facilitiu protective action is taken * * *" was i.e that the rule should apply only when, in such a manner as to protect the pub!!c inconsistent with the use of the term a general emergency has been declared health and safety. lf. in an emergency.
- immediately needed" language of the by the !!:ensee. nf s comment was not protective action is needed (and no rule. and implied that a prior report accepted. Emergencies can develop action consistent with the !! cense that should not be required at all. In rapidly.Use of the rule should net be can prodde a*dequate or equivalent naponse. the Commlesion notes that an encumbered by administrative protection is immedf stely apparent) the power reactore have dedicated prmquialtas.
licensee would be obliged to take the telephones connected directly to the A commenter proposed that a large protective action that deviates from the NRC Operatione Cenlet at au times, license. Viewed in this eenu. use of the and. under most circumstancu under fee-up to one m1Hlon dollare-be rule is not optional.
which b rule m!sht need to be used, charged for um of the rule.no thrust of One commenter suggested that b b licensee would be in contact with the comment was to ensun that i
provisions of the ruk be placed in the the NRC O violation of NRC requirements be fact!!ty o rating IIcense indicating that nerefore, perations Center anyway.
carefully considered. Another sugguted most amusency attuations Technica Speculcations are not would aUow time to make a prior holding h fler the intended to prevent a licensee from notification to the NRC. considering the determineIu 1 cations foruse of t e undutaking during the course of eau and speed that it could be done.
rule and to se if other actions could emergency conditions, any action Second, while b term "immedistely.
have been taken. As stated eather, the necessary to protect public health and as und in the rule is not defined,it Commission beueves at the rule safety. No changes to the rulthave been could involve a period of hours as the contains adequate safeguards.nerefore made in response to this comment. First, emergency develope, and certataly a then comments were not adopted, as stated above, the rule applies not period of time that is too short topermit Finally, a commentar suggested that only to technical specifications, but any NRC approval of a change to the ucense an evaluation be made of esci) instance NRC requinment, e.g., regulations. rules, before the action must be taken (as in wluch a deviation was made to license conditions, or technical stated earlier).nerefore, then te not prevent possible future need for sim!!ar l
specificaBons. Second. it ta not necessarily an inconetstency between deviations. ne Comm!ssion wiU review necessary to place the statement into the prior nport and the timing of the each use of the rule both to confirm that the operating license itself, since it le need for actfon. lf, however, there is no b latent of the rule was satisfied and being pub!!shed as a rule in i 30.54, time for a prior report,it is not required, also to analyse the circumstances
" Conditions oflicenses." By so doing.
One commenter rtated that the rule lesding to the emergency to su what the rule applies to su opereting Ucenses. constituted an adm! salon that NRC rulee A commentu suagested that a policy and !! censes are not adequate: another permanent cornettve action may be oppropetate, statement to the same safe effect would stated that the rule shows that NRC bebettu than a rule.nis was not rulee have become unwieldy.The Regulatory Analysis accepted, since the Commission believes Comm!selon does not agree with thes*
that it would be inappropriate to issue a comments. and beUeves the lasuance of The Commluton hee prepared a policy statement in conflict with a rule.
the rule will result in increased regulatory analysts for this regulation.
Only two comrnenters were not in protect!on to the public health and The analyste examinn b oosts and favor of the rule. One comment stated safety. Any attempt to define NRC benefits of b rule se considered by the that the rule would be abused. no requirements to cover all conceivable Commlula A copy af the ngulstay Commluton disagrees with this circumstances, as discussed earlier. is analysts la available for inspectfon and comument, noting that several safeguards bound to fall, and would result in copying for a fee at the NRC Pubuc have been built into the rule to prevent unwieldly regulations.
Document Room. In7 H Street NW.
this. First !!censees must notify the NRC' One comtnent noted sh appann't Washington, D.'C. Single copies of the by tele Secon[home when the rule is used.
Inconelstency between the rule (whidi analysts may be obtained from Charles the NRC may require writtan admits that unanticipeted cinumstances M. Trammeu III. Offlee of Nuclear statements from a licensee concerning can occur during the course of Reactor Regulation. UA Nuclear its actions after use of the rule. One emusencies that may ca!! for responue R*gulatory Commluton, Washington, commentet agreed that these provielons diffwent from any constdered during the D.C 80888. Telephone (301) des-rgsa.
50.SC.83 April ;g,1933
)
e PART 50 o STATEMENTS OF CONSIDERATION significant hazards considerations (item to CFR Part 50 Paperwork Raduedan Act Statement (a) above) were published for comment j
ne information collection Standards for Determining Whether in the Federal Register by the requirements contained in this t.lconee Amendmente involve No Commission on March 26.1980 (45 HL regulation have been approved by the Significant Hazarda Conalderations 20491). Since the Commission rarely issues amendments to construction Aeaucv: Nuclear Regulatory ap va
- o. 31 1-pemits and has never inued a Commission.
construction permit amendicant "Na Flexibility Certincation actiose: Interim final rule.
involving a s,gnificant hazards i
in accordance with the Regulatory sussesany: Pursuant to Public Law 97-consideration,it has decided not to f
Flexibility Act of 1980. 5 U.S.C. 006(b).
4ts. NCR is amendmg its regulations to apply these standards to amendments to i
the Commission hereby certifies that specify standards for determming construction permits and to handle thue these regulations will not,if whether requested amendments to case-by-case. His is in keeping with the i
promulgated, have a significant operating licenses for certain nuclear legislation which applies only to economicimpact on a substantial Power reactors,and testing facilities operating license amendmente.
j number of small entitles.nese involn no sig ficant hazards Additionally, these standards will not regulations affect licensees that own considerations.nese standards will now be applied to research reactors.
and operate nuclear utilization facilities h*Ip NRC in its evaluations of these ne Commission is currently reviewing licensed under sections 103 and 104 of mquests. Ruearch macton are not whether and how it should apply these the Atomic Energ-ict of1954, as covered. However, the Commission is or similar standards to research amended. De amendment serves to reviewing the extent to which and the reactors. In sum, the interim final rule clarify the applicability oflicense way such standards should be applied will amend Part 50 of the Commission's conditions and technical specifications to usearch macton.
reguistions to es'ablish standards for in an emergency.ne clarification arracTive cava:May e.1983. ne determining whether en amendment to would be incorporated as a condition of Commission specifically requests an operating license involves no the respective operating licenses, and commuts on this interim final rule by significant hazards consideration.
would require no action on the part of Commet' re ed after licensees. Accordingly, there is no new.
(Y e 1 d
de practical to do no bu assurance of newlegislation but also the public consideration cannot be given except as comments received on the proposed e s;nor do es 1 eesla within the definition of small businenes to comments received on or before this rule. For the sake of clarity, affected set forth'in section 3 of the Small pnor legislabon as well as the -
date.
~
Business Act,15 U.S.C. 632, or within the Small Business Size Standards set soonassas: Written comments should Commission's ngulations and practice forth in 13 CFR Part 121.
be sent to the Secretary of the are discu,esed as background Commission. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory information.
W of Subjects in14 CFR Part 50 Commission. Washington. D.C. 20555.
Simultaneously with the promulgation Antitrust. Classified informe tion. Fire Attention: Docketing and Service of these standards in 5 50.92, the prevention. Interpvernmental relations, Branch. Copies of the documents Commission is publishing an interim Nuclear power plants and reactors, discuped in this notice and of the final rule which contains criteria for Penalty. Radiation protection. Reactor comments received on the proposed rule providing or. in emergency situations, siting criteria, and Reporting and and interim final rules may be examined for dispensing with prior notice and recordkeeping requirements.
In the Commission's Public Document reasonable opportunity for and public Pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of Room at 1717 H Street NW-comment on a determination about 1954, as amended, the Energy Washington. D.C.
whether en amendment to en operating Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended.
pon runinen searonssation cowracT:
license involves a significant harards and section 553 of Title 5 of the United Romas F.Dorian Esq., Office of the consideration (item (b) above). nis rule States Code, the following amendments Executive legal Director. U.S. Nuclear also specifies procedures for to Title 10. Chapter I. Code of Federal Regulatory Commission. Washington, consultation on any such a Regulations. Part 50 are published as a D.C. 20555. Telephone: (301) 492-4600.
determination with the State in which document subject to codification.
sumptassawtany useonesarion:
the facility involved is located (item (c) above).no rule appears separately in Intmduction Pursuant to Public Law 97-415. NRC ese regulations are issued as final, must promulgate, within 90 days of though in interim form, and comments h 48 FR 14864 enactr.ent, regulations which establish will be considered on theln.They will (s) standards for determining whether me c e a ea t Published 4/s/s3 a
endme t t an ope i glicense effective Date: 5/s/s3.
considerations. (b) criteria for providing Accordingly, interested persons who wish to comment are encouraged to do The commienion er scifically requests or,in emergency situations, for so at the earliest possible time, but not samments en this interim final rute dispensing with prior notice and later than 10 days after pub?ication, to by s/s/s3. comments sereived af ter reasonable opportunity for public comment on any such determination, permit l'.e fullest consideration of their this date win be seceidered n et is and (c) procedures for consultation on view' practiset to do,,, b.i es,rense.,
any such determination with the State in Nckpeund g
which the facility involved is located.
encept a to comments received on Proposed regulations to specify A MectedLegislation. Resu/otions or d or before this date.
standards for determining whether Procedume amendments to operatinglicenses or When the Atomic Energy Act of1954 construction permits for facilities (Act) was adopted in 1954, it contained licensed under il 50.21(b) or 80.22 no provision which required a public
.(including testing facilities) lavolve no
(
50 SC.84 April 29,1983
M -
a
-, f 'Y o arr 'o,,
e UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
o=
3
- E WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 8
,o EDO PRINCIPAL CORRESPONDENCE CONTROL
- = - - - -
- - - - ____.= __
FROM:
DUE: 08/06/85 EDO CONTROL: 000852 DOC DT: 07/17/85 SEN. PAUL SIMON FINAL REPLY:
TO:
-CHARLES M.
TRAMMELL FOR SIGNATURE OF:
GREEN SECY NO:
-EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR DESC:
ROUTING:
REQUEST INFO RE 10 CFR 50.54 (X) AND (Y) WHICH MINOGUE ALLOWS OPERATOR OF NCULEAR REACTOR TO DEVIATE TAYLOR FROM TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS DURING AN EMERGENCY GCUNNINGHAM SITUATION OCA SECY DATE: 07/23/85 ASSIGNED TO. NRR CONTACT: DENTON ShECIAL_. INST'RUCTIONSORREMARKS:
REPLY TO CHICAGO, ILLINOIS OFFICE.
MARK ENVELOPE ATTN: JOHN WEINBERGER.
NRR RECEIVED: 07/23/85 C/
ACTION:
DL, H. THOM S N
/
kk-whb ~
' ft,A
-M~
/R
,, e g [,
)
ROUTING: DENTON/EISENHUT h(
(
Ll'I gC 5 b
/
0
(( Cp