ML20155B208
| ML20155B208 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000000 |
| Issue date: | 12/03/1975 |
| From: | NRC |
| To: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20150F521 | List:
|
| References | |
| FRN-45FR20491, RULE-PR-2, RULE-PR-50 AA61-2-016, AA61-2-16, RLOP-601, NUDOCS 8604140416 | |
| Download: ML20155B208 (30) | |
Text
.., - _ -,. -..
~f
' 4
< 0
$MlO Pot py UNITED STATES.
- )
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION gl W ASHINGTON. D. C. 20555 i
T I
4 q,
- s..
M DEC 3,1975 r
p" RL Assistant Directors RL Branch Chiefs
^
RL Project Managers RL Licensing Assistants RL OPEPATING PHOCEDUPE 601, REVISION 6 ISSUANG OF OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENTS, INCLUDING REVISIONS TO
'IEE APPENDIX A AND B 'IECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS 1
I.
INTRODUCTION j-
'Ihis procedure revises in its entirety RL Operating Procedure 601, j
.j j
Pevision 5 and contains guidance for issuing amendTents to operating licenses, including revisions to Appendix A and Appendix B technical specifications of nuclear power plants and for amendments to research j
reactor licenses.
^
l t
l f
II.
BACKGROUND f
i Based on 10 CFR 50.59:
i 1.
Licensees may make changes in the facility or procedures and I
conduct tests or experiments not described in the safety b
analysis report without prior Comission approval unless such s
' change, test or experiment involves a change in the technical specifications or an "unreviewed safety question."
2.
A licensee who desires to make a change in the facility or procedures or to conduct tests or experiments which involve j
' - an "unreviewed safety question" or to make a change in the technical specifications must subenit an application for an j
amendment to the license.
}
I
[f 1
1 l
t n"e B604140416 860327 PDR PR 2 45FR20491 PDR t
~.. ~
a.-
m m-
-. m.m
.---m
=
2
_y.
3 N
- =8 3.
If the amendment involves a "significant hazards consideration",
1 public notice and an opportunity for a hearing must be provided O
prior to Comission action on the application for amendment.
In addition,10 CFR Part 51 sets forth NRC policy and procedures
[
for inplementing the requirements of Section 102(2)(C) of the j
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) in connection with the Comission's licensing and regulatory activities. Envi-j rorgnental impact statements are prepared and circulated prior to any major Comission action which significantly affects the 5
quality of the human environment.
J Other actions may or may not require preparation of an environ-h mental impact statement, depending upon the circumstances.
In determining whether an' environmental inpact statenent should or M
should not be prepared for such action, the Comission is guided 55 by 10 CFR 51.5 and by the Council on Environmental Quality Guide-T lines, 40 CFR 1500.6.*
If it is determined that an environnental inpact statement need g
not be prepared, a negative declaration and environrental inpact O..
appraisal will, unless otherwise determined by the Comission,
=
be prepared. Guidance for making this determination and pro-cedures to be followed are detailed in later sections of this i
procedure.
mj III. SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS CONSIDERATIONS AND NEPA DETERMINATIONS It is neither possible nor desirable to provide a rigid formula which can N used to determine whether a proposed license amend-nent involves a significant hazards consideration.
In some
-w cases the collective judgement of senior staff menbers will te required before a decision can be made.
For purposes of
=
ouidance, however, a proposed change or anendment can generally J
0~o be categorized as involving a significant hazards consideration if: (1) it involves a significant increase in the probability or
=
1 y
i O
- Each IN should read the CEQ Guidelines; copies are included in the B
Guide for Preparation of Environmental Statements.
-S-3-a amm A
O-m S
-~--%
. significant decrease (2) it involves a d using as a base
'Ihese criteria must be appliey the Comt.issio i nsing consequences of an accident, in a safety margin.
what has been considered b staff must make actions in that specific case.
se amendment, the whether the chance involvesIf it does, pu
]
In evaluating a proposed licen is The fir st consideration.ing must be provided prior to Com-and re two determinations.
a sianificant hazardsand an opportunity for a hear'Ihis applies t of l and pre-mission action.second determinationed agendment is acceptab e health and safety.
The course, is whether the proposundue risk to the pu actors.
a ies:
sents no significant hazards cons
'Ihe first determination vil (b) it earliest practical date, i
it clearly involves a il af ter the acendment is issue,ignifi h
d or should be pre-noticed at t eclearly does not involve a s (a) regarding d normally the determinationd until the s and need not be noticed unt has There (c) there is uncertainty an such a determination.is critical and
=
pre-noticing will be daferre ble ical of the agendmentotice at the earliest pract procressed sufficiently to ena i
some ceses where the tim ng date even though it is not possit might be are tions.
significant hazards considera license amendments which are more t ior's significant hazards considcra which Exanoles of Appendix A typeothers to involve significant hazards consideraTypes tions are likely than first deter-are listad in Enclosure la.
For these types listed, the i t of the pro-not likely to involvewithin a few days of rece p As ly.
listed in Enclosure Ib.
ot to pre-notice ixediateproject aanager are mination should te made posed change as to whether or n is made, theform (Enclosure 2) and obtain the king the soon as this determinationcorplete the determination The ORPM is responsible fcr ma d below, although he may wish to staff intention re-necessary concurrences.NEPA determinations as discusse' L
consult with the EPM.garding noticirig of the propos ed change.
will not involve se amendmentsDevertheless, a determination i
Generally Appendix B type l cen Since tions.
pleted in each case.
l effluent significant hazards consideraform (Enclosure 2) sh ifications include radiologica4, each posed 9
izant ORPM Appendix B technical specrelease limits in Section 2.ifi changes to Section 2.4 spec x
j
T.
.c.
t
(
i
~
f consequences of an accident, (2) it involves a significant decrease in a safety margin. 'Ihese criteria mst be @ plied using as a base j
what has been considered by the Comnission sin previous licensing actions in that specific case.
4 In evaluating a proposed license amendment, the staff must make i
two determinations. The first is whether the change involves a significant hazards consideration.
If it does, public notice i
[
and an opportunity for a hearing must be provided prior to Com-(
mi'ssion action. 'Ihis applies to power, testing and research re-actors. fne second determination which_the staff must make, of i
scourse, is whether the proposed amendment is acceptable and pre-sents no, undue risk to the public health and safety.
i
'Ihe first determination will fall into one of three cate'gories:
i (a) it clearly involves a significant hazards consideration and i
e--
should be pre-noticed at the earliest practical date,- (b) it i.
clearly does not involve a significant hazards consideration, j
and need.not be noticed until after the amendment is issued, or j
(c) there is uncertainty and normally the determination regarding t
pre-noticing will be deferred until the safety evaluation has l
'(
progressed sufficiently to enable such a determination. There are some cases where the timing of the amendment is critical and
[
s it might be most expedient to pre-notice at the earliest practical 1
date even though it is not possible to make a determination on i
significant hazards considerations.
l t
Exanples of Appendix A type license amendments which are more
{
likely than others.to involve significant hazards considerations i
are listed in Enclosure la. Types of license amendments which are not likely to involve significant hazards considerations are
[
listed in Enclosure Ib. Fbr these types listed, the first deter-I mination should be made within a few days of receipt of the pro-posed change as to whether or not to pre-notice innediately. As soon as this determination is made, the project manager should l
conplete the determination form (Enclosure 2) and obtain the i
necessary. concurrences. The ORPM is responsible for making the NEPA determinations as discussed below, although he may wish to consult with the EPM. 'Ihis documents the staff intention re-f
. garding noticing of the proposed change.
GeneraklyAppendixBtypelicenseamendmentswi11necinvolve
-significan.t hazards considerations. Nevertheless, a determination
. form (Enclosure 2) should be completed in each case. Since Appendix B technical specifications include radiological effluent release limits in Section 2.4, each EPM should coordinate proposed i
changes to Section 2.4 specifications with the cognizant ORPM
{I]
l' i!
'\\
e
l t
. c.
_4_
<~
fs~
to assure that there are no significant hazards considerations I
associated with the proposed changes. Nbere an Appendix B type license amendment could involve a significant hazards considera-tion, the cognizant ORPM will take the lead in processing the
[,c amendment.
(
IV.
REVIEW PROCEDURES A.
Appendix A Type License Amerdments - Ibwer and Testing Reactors K.
All A@endix A type license amendments require th preparation of a safety evaluation (see format in Enclosure 3.. Se deter-mination of acceptability of an Appendix A type license amendment involves an assessment of whether there is reasonable assurance that the facility can be operated in the manner proposed without endangering the health and safety of the public. %is determi-nation is made at the co @letion of the safety evaluation and is documented in the SER. %e scope and length of such a safety evaluation will be dependent on the significance and co@lexity of the amendment.
i In connection with any Appendix A type amendment, the pro-7 visions of Part 51 on environmental matters must be considered.
k'_
he cognizant ORPM, in consultation with the Em as appropriate, and OELD, will make an appropriate finding regarding the necessary environmental determination and co@lete the information on the form shown in Enclosure 2.
Guidan for determining proper action pursuant to Part 51 for A@endix A type license amendments is i
given in Enclosure 4.
If an environmental statement or a nega-p 1
tive declaration is appropriate, EP will prepare the document.
[l t
In order to assist the EPM in preparing any documentation re-l quired by Part 51, the ORPM will indicate in the description j
of the proposed amendment included in the form shown in Enclo-4 sure 2 whether the proposed license amendment (1) is a major action l
significantly affecting the quality of the human environment (refer to 10 CFR Sl.5(a)(10)) or (2) could affect the types and quantities i
of effluents from the facility or change the authorized power level of the facility (refer to 10 CPR 51.5(b)(2)) or (3) authorizes the dismantling or decomissioning of nuclear power reactors or testing facilities (refer to 10 CFR SI.5(b) (7)). If the proposed amendment involves such matters, the ORPM will describe these changes to the extent possible. %e ORPM will take the lead in developing a coor-dinated schedule for co@letion of the licensing action including environmental action required by Part 51, and the safety evaluation.
i
(
\\
/
u t
i
/,
RLUP 601, REV. 6 t
Enclosure la i
)
t m-s i
i SOME EXAMPLES OF APPENDIX A TYPE LICENSE AMENDMENTS THAT ARE LIKELY TO INVOLVE SIGNIFICANT l
HAZARDS CONSIDERATIONS AND SHOULD BE i
PREN0TICED PRIOR TO SAFETY EVALUATION
- d 1.
Increase in authorized maximum power level (not previously evaluated by staff).
2 Any relaxation of safety limits.
- 3. Any relaxation of limiting safety system settings.
4.
Any amendment resulting from a Section 50.59 plant modification, test or experiment or Tech Spec changes that involves or results from an unreviewed safety question.
5 Any relaxation in limiting conditions for operation not accompanied by compensatory changes, conditions, or actions that maintain a commensurate level of safety.
1 6.
Any plant modification or other change that involves a new and different kind of accident not included in the envelope
(
of accidents considered previously.
iI I
i
- See SeIti n III of this orocedure for guidance in soecia circumstances.
4 l
_a
_m_._.~__a_
._m.
,/
1
.w
)_'
RLOP 601, REV. 6 Enclosure Ib SOME EXAMPLES OF LICENSE AMF.NDM5NTS -
THAT ARE NOT LIKELY TO INVOLVE SIGhlFICANT HAZARDS CONSIDERATIONS AND Sl!OULD h0T BE PRENOTICED PRIOR TO SAFETT EVALUATION 1.
Any change that is limited to Appendix B, Environmental Tech Specs.
2 Any purely administrative change to Tech Spec (e.g., any change to Admin. Controls Section or Definitions, or correction of an error, or a change in nomenclature).
3.
Any change to Tech Spec resulting from a Section 50. 59 change, test, or experiment that does not involve or result from an unreviewed safety question.
4.
Any change proposed by licensee that constitutes an addi-tional limitation, restriction, or control, not presently included in the Tech Specs, unless the change results from an unreviewed safety question.
- 5. Any changes resulting from a core reloading so long as no fuel assemblies significantly different from those used and analyzed for a previous core are involved, no changes are made to the bases for the Tech Specs, and the analytical methods used to demonstrate conformance with the bases j
are unchanged or are methods already found acceptable by the NRC.
lr
- 6. Any increase in power level relieving an earlier restriction l
which was imposed because the plant construction was not j
yet completed satisfactorily.
[
t
- 7. Any change resulting from the application of a small refine-l ment of a previously used calculational model or design method.
l I'(
l f'
h 4
l l
i
- N PoTe 7744 Feder:1 Regist:r / Vol. 51, No. 44 / Thursdiy, Mirch 6,1986 / Rul;s cod Regul:ti ns
- producers who have not authorized a (2) are revised and a new paragraph NUCt. EAR REGULATORY cooperative association to receive (c)(3)is added to read as follows:
COMMISSION I H24.s2 Papnts h h W" Cm M 2 and M s r o subject o h egon ase P!
g pursuant to 81124.68, shall report to the Final Procedures and Standards on No market admm, istrator m detail and on Significant Hazards Considerations forms prescribed by the market (c}...
t cdministrator as follows for each such (1) To each cooperative association C
a) he producer's name, address and pfo u e ho arke th r ilk A
al rule.
( ) The t al cands of milk received fn[whi 8
sueensAny: Pursuant to Pub. L 97-415, i
b ct t te rgn from such producer, the average Base Plan pursuant to i 1124.68, an NRC is amen &ng its reguladons 6 Gnal butterf2t test thereof, and the pounds of frm(1)t provide procedures under butterfat centamed in the producer's amount equal to the aggregate of the which, before grantmg or denying an milk:
payments calculated pursuant to amendment, tormally it would give (c) The pounds of base and excess agtap a) is a tion f r all notice of opportunity for a hearing on k
9 e,,
e milk for each producer:
applications it receives to amend (d) The value of each producer's milk administratar by such cooperative operating licenses for nuclear power associatw.n as having authorized such reactors and testing facihties and prior at the base and excess prices for the month; cooperative association to receive such notice and reasonable opportunity for (e) The nature and amount of any payments; public comment on proposed i
adjustments to and deductions from the (2) To the Director, Milk Audit and determinations about whether these payments due each producer; and S'abilization Division. Oregon State amendments involve no significant (f) The net amount of the payment Department of Agriculture, for each hazards considerations. (2) to specify made to each such producer for milk producer and cooperative association criteria for dispensing with such prior delivered during the month.
fcr milk subject to the Oregon Base Plan notice and reasonable opportunity for
- 6. In i 1124.46, paragraphs (a)(4) and pursuant to i 1124.68 the aggregate of public comment for amendment requests t
(5)(i) are revised to read as follov the pa3 ments otherwise due such where emergency situations exist and individual producers and cooperative for shortening the comment period for
[ 24 4 A of,at associations pursuant to paragraph (b) emendment requests where exigent,
[
n of sw
..d g,,
and paragraph (c)(1) of this section: and circumstances exist. and (3) to furnish (a)...
(3) To each handler who so requests, procedures for consultation on these g
determinations with the State in which
. (4)(i) With respect to a plant that was for mi k received by the handler from fully regulated in the preceding month producers who have not authonzed a the facility involved is located.
under this or any other Federal mi'k cooperative association to receive Amendment requests for research order providmg for a similar allocation payment for their milk and whose milk reactors and construction permits are handled case by case. These procedures of beginning inventories of packaged is not subject to the Oregon Base Plan normally provide the public and the I
fluid milk products:
pursuant to 11124.68, an amount equal States with prior notice of NRC's (a) Subtract from the remaining to the sum of the mdividual payments determinations involving no significant i
pounds of skim milk in Class I the otherwise due such producers pursuant hazards considerations and with an pounds of skim milk in packaged fluid to paragraph (a) of this section subject opportunity to comment on its actions.
milk products in inventory at the to the provis:ons of i 1124.88. The EmCTIVE DATE:May 5,1966.
beginning of the month: and handler then shcIl pay the individual (b) Subtract from the pounds of skim producers the amounts due them on or ADDRESSES: Copies of comments milk in Class 11 the pounds of siim milk before the date specified in paragraph received on the amendments and of the in pickaged cream in inventory at the (b) of this section. Any handler who the other documents described below may l
beginning of the month:
market administrator determines is or be examined, or copied for a fee,in the (ii) Subtract from the pounds of skim was delinquent with respect to any Commission's Public Document Room at milk in Class 11. the pounds of skim milk payment obligation under this order 1717 H Street, NW., Washington, DC.
(
in other source milk (except that shall not be eligible to participate in this Named document may be purdiased 6
received in the form of a fluid milk payment arrangement until the handler from the U.S. Government Prin ing product or cream) that is used to has met all prescribed payment Office (GPO) by calling 202-27. -2060 or produce, or added to, any product obligations for three consecutive by writing to the GPO, P.O. Box 37082, sp;cified in i 1124.41(b), but not in months.
Washington, DC 20013-7082. They also exciss of the pounds of skim milk may be purchased from the National l
remaining in Class 11:
Effective date: March'1.1986.
Technical Information Service, U.S.
i (5) * *
- Signed at Washington. D.C., on: February Department of Commerce. 5285 Port (i) Other source milk in a form other 28,1986.
Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161.
(
than that of a fluid milk product or Alan T.Tracy.
FDR FURTHER INFORa4AT10N CONTACT:
cream that was not subtracted pursuant Acting Assistant Secretary, Marketing and Thomas F. Dorian. Esq., Office of the to pirigraph (a)(4)(ii) of this section:
Inspection Services.
Executive LegalDirector U.S. Nuclear g
[FR Doc. 86-4928 Filed 3-5-88; 8.45 am]
Regulatory Commission. Washington.
- 7. In i 1124.82. paragraphs (c) (1) and esameo caos moes.m DC 20555. Telephone: (301) 492-8690.
m sh
1 e
Feder;l Regist r / Vol. 51. N. 44 / Thursday March 6.1986 / Rules and Regulations
' 'M45 j
SUPPLEMENTARY INFOna4ATIO*C reactors and certain other facilities.See Commission to di Penae witn such Introduction Pub. L 85-256 (71 Stat. 576) amending
. thirty-days' notice and Federal Register Pub. L 97-415. signed on January 4.
section 189a.of the Act.
publication for the issuance of an j
1983. among other things, directed NRC he 1957 amendments to the Act were amendment to a construction permit or to promulgate regulations which interpreted by the Commission as an amendment to an operating license establish (a) standards for determining requiring a " mandatory hearing" before upon a determination byit that the w hether an amendment to an operating issuance of amendments to construction amendment involved no significant license involves no significant hazards permits and operating licenses. See, e g, hazards consideration. Dese provisions consideration. (b) criteria for providing.
Hearing Before the Subcommittee on were incorporated into the or, in emergency situations. dispensing Legislation. Joint Committee on Atom.c Commission's regulations, which were with, prior notice and public comment Energy,87th Cong 2d. Sess. (Aptil17 subsequent y changed.See il 2.105, on any such determination, and (c) 1962). at 6. Partially in response to the 2.106. 50.58 (a) and (b) and 50.91.
procedures for consulting with the State administrative rigidity and cumbersome The Commission's regulations before in which the facility involved is located procedures which this interpretation promulgation of the two interim final on such a determination about an forced upon the Commission (see. Joint rules provided for prior notice of an amendment request. See Conf. Rep. No.
Committee on Atomic Energy Staff application for an amendment when a 97-684. 97th Cong 2d Sess. (1982). The Study " Improving the AEC Regulatory determination was made that there is a legislation also authorized NRC to issue ' Process". March 1961. pp. 49-50), section significant hazards consideration. and and make immediately effective an 189a. of the Act was amended in 1962 to also provided an opportunity for amendment to a license, upon a eliminate the requirement for a interested members of the public to determination that the amendment mandatory public hearing except upon request a hearing. Hence,if a requested insolves no significant hazards the application for a construction permit license amendment were found to consideration (even though NRC has for a power or testing facility. As stated involve a significant hazards before it a request for a hearing by an in the report of the Joint Committee on consideration. the amendment would interested person) and in advance of the Atomic Energy which recommended the not be issued until after any required holdmg and completion of any required amendments:
hearing were completed or after h e ing.
expiration of the notice period. In The two interim final rules published Accordingly, this section will eliminate the in the Federal Register on Apnl 6.1983 requirements for a mandatory hearing. except addition. I 50.58(b) further explained the e appl ati f ra Commission's hearing and notice
((48 FR 14864) and (48 FR 14873)).
}',P,,
nsgcoQenmi procedures, as follows:
o,,
responded to the statutory directive that plan. the issuance of amendments to such NRC expeditiously promulgate construction permits. and the issuance of The Commission will hold a hearing after regulations on the three items noted operating licenses and amendments to at least 30 days notice and publication once above.The first dealt with the standards operating licenses, would be only after a 30 in the Federal Register on each application i
themselves and the second with the day pubhc notice and an offer of hearing. In for a construction permit for a production or notice and State cons'ultation the absence of a request for a hearing, utilization facility which is of a type procedures. These regulations were issuance of an amendment to a construction described in i 50.21(b) or i 50.22 or which is issued as final. through in interim form.
permit. or issuance of an operating license, or a testing facihty. When a construction permit and comments have been considered on an amendment to an operating license, would has been issued for such a facility following them.
be possible without formal proceedmgs, but the holding of a public hearing and an i
The following discussion is divided on the pubhc record. It will also be possible application is made for an operating license for the Commission to dispense with the 30 or for an amendment to a construction permit into three parts. The first discusses the day notice requirement where the application or operating license, the Commission may background for this final rule. including presents no sigmficant nazards consideration. hold a heanns after at least 30 days notice a discussion of the proposed rule on the
" Itis enterion is presently being applied by and publication once in the Federal Register standards published before passade of the Commission under the terms of AEC or,in the absence of a request therefor by the legislation as well as an over iew of Regulation 50.59. House Meport No.1966. 87th any person whose interest may be affected.
the interim final rules published after C ng,2d. sess, p. s.
may issue an operating license or an the Iegisfation was enacted. See 45 FR amendment to a e natruction permit or 20491 (March 28.1980). The second ihus, according to the 1962 operating license without a hearing. upon 3o amendments, a mandatory public days notice and publication once in the analyzes and I?sponds to the pubhc hearing would no longer be required Federal Register okte intent to do so. If the
)
comments on the two mterim final rules.
before issuance of an amendment to a Commission finds that no significant hazards And the third discusses the present construction permit or operating license consideration is presented by an, application i
practice and modification made to it by and a thirty. day prior public notice f r en amendment to a construction penmt or J
the final rule
- would be required only if thd proposed operating license. It may dispense with such notice and publication and may issue the I. Background amendment involved a "significant amendrnent.
hazards consideration."In sum, section A. AffectedLegislation. Regulations and 189a.of the Act as modified by the 1962 The Commission noted in its interim Procedures amendments, provided that upon thirty-final rules that, after it has made its When the Atomic Energy Act of1954 days' notice published in the Federal determination about whether a proposed (Act) was adopted in 1954, it contained Register, the Commission was permitted license amendment does or does not no provision which required a public to issue an operating license, an present a signficiant hazards hearing on issuance of a construction amendment to an operating license, or consideration, its hearing and attendant permit or an operating license for a an amendment to a construction permit, notice requirements come into play.
nuclear power reactor in the absence of for a facility licensed under sections 103 Under its former rules. the Commission a request from an interested person. In or 104b. of the Act or for a testing made its determination about whether it 1957, the Act was amended to require facihty licensed under wetion 104c.,
should provide an opportunity for a that mandatory hearings be held before without a pablic hearing if no hearing hearing before issuing an amendment issuance of both a construction permit was requested by an interested person.
together with its determination about and an operating license for power Section 189a. also permitted the whether it should issue a prior notice--
)
I 7746 Federd Register / Vol. 51, N9. 44 / Thmsda. Wrdi a,1985 / Rules and Regdshosts h
and the central factor in both B. The Sholly Decivion ondtheNew
. an "intesessed person"wfthin the.
determinations was the issue of"no Legislation meaning of section 189a,-that is, l
significant hazards consideration."It had been argued that in practice this The Commission's practice Uf uct wheer de pemon has semnstrated meant that the staff often decided the providing an opportunity for a prior standing and identfied one or more hearing on a license amendment not issues to be litigated. See, BP1 v. Atomic merits of an amendment together with involving significant hazards
. Energy Commissam. 5n2 F.2d 424,428 the issue of whether it should give notice before or after it has issued the considerations was held to be impropee (D.C. Cir.1974), where the Court stated amendment.See 48 FR 14864, at 14865 in Sholly v. NRC 651 F.2d 7a0 (1980).
that, "Under its procedcal regulations it rehearing denied. 651 F.2d 792 (1981),
is not unreasonable for the ihmission
( Apnl 6.1983). The argument arose. in vocated and remanded. 459 U.S.1194 to require that Se prospective,
part. because c,f some concern that the intervenor Grst specdy request for a bearing., the basis for Ms (1983), vacated. 706 F.2d 1229 (Table)
Act and the regulations did not define (1983)(Sholly). In that case the U.S.
the term "sigmficant hazards Court of Appeals for the District of The Commission behewed that consideration" and did not establish Columbia Circuit ruled that, under legislation was needed tc charque the criteria for determining when a section 189a. of the Act, NRC must hold result reached by the Court in sbally preposed amendment involves a hearing before issuing an amendment because of the implicatmas of the "significant hazards considerations.*
to an operating license for s nuclear requirement that the Coaunesion grant Section 50 59 has. of course, all along set power plant,if there has been a request a requested hearing before it mnlA issue forth criteria fcr determining when a for heanng (or an expression of interest a license amendment involving no proposed change, test or experiment in the subject matter of the proposed significant hazards consideration. It also involves an "unresiewed safety amendment which is sufficient to believed that, smce most requested question" but it was and is clear that not constitute a request for a hearing). A license amendments invn!ving no every such questien invohes a "sigmficant hazards consideration."
prior hearing. said the Court,is required significant hazards consideration are even when NRC has made a finding that routine in nature, prior hearings on such The Commission's practice with a proposed amendment involves no amendments could result in tamecessary regard to license amendments involving significant hazards consideration and disruption or delay in the operctions of no significant hazards consideration has determined to dispense with prior nuclear power plants by imposing (unless. as a matter of discretion. prior notice in the Federal Register.
regulatory burdens urrrelated to notice was given) was to issue the At the request of the Commission and significant safety matters. Subsequently, I
amendment and then publish in the the Department of Justice, the Supreme on March 11.1981, the Commission Fediral Register a " notice of issuance."
Court agreed to review the Court of submitted proposed legislation to See i 2.106. In such a case. interested Appeals' interpretation of section 189a.
Congress (introduced as S. 912) members of the public who wished to of the Act. On February 22,1983, the expressly authorizmg the NRC to issue a object to the amendment and request a Supreme Court vacated the Court of heense amendment before holding a heanng could do so but a request for a Appeals' opinion as moot and directed hearing requested by an trrterested heanng did not by itself. suspend the the Court of Appeals to reconsider the person, when it made a deterrninstion effectiveness of the amendment.Thus.
case in light of the new legislation. On that no significant hazards both the notice and hearing. if one were April 4,1983, the Court of Appeals.
consideration was involved in the l
requested. occurred after the having considered the legislation found amendment.
amendment was issued.
that the portion ofits opinion holding After the House and Senate conferees It is important to bear in mind as one that a hearing requested under section considered two similar bills. H.R. 2330 rezds this background statement and the 189a. of the Act must be held before a and S.1207, they agreed on a unified final regulations that there is no intrinsic license amendment becomes effective version (see Conf. Rep. No.97-884. 97th safety significance to the "no significant would be moot as soon as NRC Cong.,2d. Sess. (1982)) and passed Pub.
hazards consideration" standard.
promulgated the regulations to which L 97-415. Specifically, section 12(a) of Neither as a notice standard nor as a the legislation referred. The Court also that law amends section 189a. of the Act standard about when a hearing may be found that NRC, of course, was still by adding the following with respect to held does it have a substantive safety under a statutory mandate to hold a license amendments involving no significance. Whether or not an action hearing after an amendment became signiScant hazards considerations; j
requires prior notice or a prior hearing.
effective if requested to do so by an no license and no amendment mcy be interested party. Appeal Nos.8MB91, (2H A)ne Commission may issue and i
make immediately effective any amendment
]
issued unless the Commission concludes 60-1783, and 8M784.
to an operating license. upon a determination that it provides reasonable assurance The Court of Appeals' decision did by the Commission that such amendment i
that the public health and safety will not not involve and has no effect upon the involves no significant hazards consideration.
be endangered and that the action will Commission's authority to order notwithstanding the pendency before the j
not be inimical to the common defense immediately effective amendments Commission of a regt.est for a hearing from cnd security or to the health and safety without prior notice or bearing when the any person. Such amendment vr sy be issued of tha public. See. e.g., 5 50.57(a). In public health, safety, or interest so and made immediately effective in advance short, the "no significant hazards requires.See. Administrative Procedure of the holding and completion of any required consideration" standard is a procedural Act, section 91a),5 U.S.C. 558(c); section hearing. In determining under this section st:ndard which governs whether an 181 of the Atomic Energy Act. 42 U.S.C.
su ame en
- o pportunity for a prior hearing must be 2201(c); 10 CFR 2.202(f) and 2.204.
9 9
provided before action is taken by the Similarly, the Court did not alter Commission shall consult with the State in f
Commission, and, as discussed later, existing law with regard to the which the fa cility involved is located. in all other respects such smendment shall meet I
whether prior notice for public comment Commission's pleadmg requirements.
the requirements of ens Act.
may be dispensed with in emergency which are designed to enable the
@l The Commission shall periodically (but situations or shortened in exigent Cemmission to determine whether a circumstances.
act less frequently than once every thirty person requesting a laaring is,in fact.
days) publish notice of any amendments i
L n
Fed:r:1 Regist r / Vol. 51, No. 44 / Thursd:y, M:rch 6,1986 / Rules and Regulations 7747 issued. or proposed to be issued. as provided The public notice provision was
- 1. Petition and Proposed Rule in subparagraph (A). Each such notice shall explained by the Conference Report as include all amendments issued or proposed follows.
Genero. The Commission,a interim to be issued. since the date of publication of final rule on standards for determining the last such periodic notice. Such notice The conferees note that the purpose of whether an amendment involves no shall. with r3spect to each amendment or requiring prior notice and an opportunity for a gnificant hazards consideration proposed amendment (i) identify the facility public comment before a license amendment ms oh ed; and (ii) provide a brief description may take effect as provided m subsection resulted from a notice of toposed P
of such amendment. Nothing in this (2)(C)(ii) for all but emergency situations,is rulemaking issued in response to a subsection shall be construed to delay the to allow at least a minimum level of citizen Petition for rulemaking (PRM 50-17) effectne date of any amendment.
input into the threshold question of whether submitted by letter to the Secretary of *
(C) The Commission shall. during the the proposedlicense amendment involves,
the Commission on May 7,1976, by Mr.
ninety-day period following the effective date sigmficant health or safety issues. While this Robert Lowenstein. For the reasons of this paragraph. promulgate regulations subsection of the conference agreement discussed below, the petition was establishing (i) standards for determining
["g';'b (o ta denied. See 48 FR 14867. However, the th and ent whelher any amendment to an operating rocedures to the exigency of the need for the Commission published proposed c n idera o. (n c ei r p ovid ng or in scense amendment, the conferees expect the standards, as intended by the petitioner, emergency situatiens. dispensing with prior c ntent. placement and timing of the notice to though not the standards requested.
notice and reasonable opportunity for pubhc be reasonably calculated to allow residents (PRM-50-17 was published for comment comment on any such determination. which of the area surrounding the facility an in the Federal Register on June 14.1976 cnteria shall take fato account the exigency pp (41 FR 24006)). The staffs t
on e
c,f the need for the amendment involved. and.
The requirement in subsection 2(C)(ii) that recommendations on this petition are in i,m! procedures for consultation on any such. the Commission promulgate criteria for SECY/79-660 (December 13,1979). The cetermination with the State in.which the f oht) insohed is located.
providmg or dispensing with prior notice and notice of proposed rulemaking was pubhc comment on a proposed determination published in the Federal Register on Section 12(b) of that law specifies that a license amendment involves no March 28,1980 (45 FR 20491). Note that that:
significant hazards consideration reflects the the proposed rule was published before Passage of the legislation and that the (b)The authont> of the Nuclear Regulatory the co is ion hou d ub pr or o ice Commiss:on, under the provisions of the of, and provide for prior public comment on.
Congress was aware of this rule during amendment made by subsection (a). to issue such a proposed determmation.
Passage of the legislation.He staffs and to make immed;atel> effective any in the context of subsection (2)(C)(ii), the recommendations first on a final rule amendment to an operatmg license shall take conferees understand the term " emergency and later on the interim final rules are in effect upon the promulgation by the situations" to encompass only those rare SECY-81-366, 81-306A, 83-16,83-16A Commission of the regulations required in cases in which immediate action is necessary and 83-16B. (These documents are suc provisions.
to preyent the shutdown or derating of an available for examination in the P
Thus. as noted above. the legislation
'g,'[an sio egu!ations :
n that Commission's Public Documant Room at authorizes NRC to issue and make the " Emergency situations" exception under 1717 H Street, NW, Washington, DC.)
immediately effective an amendment to section 12 of the conference agreement will In issuing the proposed rule, the an operating license upon a not apply if the licensee has failed to apply Commission sought to define more determination that the amendment for the bcense amendment in a timely involves no significant hazards fashion. In other words, the licensee should precisely the standards for determining when an amen li involved no s. dment APP cation considerations. even though NRC has not be able to take advantage of the ignificant 1.azards before it a request for a hearing from an emugency itself.To prevent abuses of this interested person. In this regard, the provision, the conferees expect the considerations. These standards would J
Con 7erence Report states:
Commission to mdependently assess the have applied to amendments to licensee's reasons for failure to file an operating licenses, as requested by the The conference agreement maintains the application sufficiently in advance of the petition for rulemaking, and also to requirement of the current section 189a.of the threatened closure or dersting of the facility.
construction permit amendments, to Atomic Energy Act that a hearing on the Conf. Rep. No.97-884,97th Cong.,2d Sess., at hcense amendment be held upon the request 3a (1982).
whatever extent considered appropriate, The Commission later /ecided that Nr',2,Ni,,8 pl"y a C. Basis forInterim FinalRule on these standards should not be applied to e nt s horizes the Commission,in those cases where the StandardsforDetermmmg Whetheran amendments to construction permits, amendment involved poses no significant Amendment to an Operating License since such amendments are rare and hazards consideration. to issue the license IDF0lFes No Sign /[icant #0ZCrds normally would not be expected to amendment and allow it to take effect before Considerations andExamples of involve a significant hazards this heanng is held or completed. The Amendments that Are Considered consideration. it therefore modified the conferees intend that the Commission will Likely orNotI.ikely to Inys/ve proposed rule accordingly. Additionally, use this authority carefully, applying it only Significant Nazards Considerations the Commission stated in the interim a gni ica t azard c n iderat Conf Rep.
Many of the comments on the interim final rules that it would review the No.97-884. 2d. Sess, at 37 (1982).
final rules were the same or were extent to which and the way sta6dards And the Senate has stressed:
similar to those on the proposed rule.To should be applied to research reactors.
provide a convenient menns for future it also noted that meanwhile it would Its strong desire to preserve for the pt blic a reference, the comments and responses handle case.by. case any amendments meaningful right to participate in decisions on the proposed rule and the petition for requested for construction permits or for regarding the commercial use of nuclear rulemaking are consolidated and research reactors with respect to the power. Thus, the provision does not dispense repeated here with references to the issue of significant hazards
. f r ques e ya n ere e pers n].
earlier Federal Register citations. The considerations. (48 FR 14867.)
must conduct a heanng after the license comments received on the interim final Before the proposed rule on standards amendment takes effect. See S. Rep. No 97-rules are then discussed and the was published, the Commission's staff 113,9"th Cong.,1st Sess at 14 (1981).
Commission's responses are provided.
was guided,in reaching its i
7748 Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 44 / Thursday, March 8,1986 / Rules and Regulations i
determinations with respect to no separate raatter, is based on pinblic.
=ahm for insigniScaat types af 1
significtnt hazards consideration, by health and safety.
awidente. nis commevet was not standards very similar to those Comments o o
Ru1e and accepted.The Cswmi.es. stated that discribed in the proposed rule and in setting a thresnold level for accidern l
the interim final rules. In addition, the consequences could eliminate a groep of staff used a list of examples of
- a. Genero1. Nine perscos submitted amendmenia wXh sempne to accidents amendments likely to involve, and not comments on the petition of rulemaking which have man been pseieously likely to involve. significant hazards and nine persons submated comments evaluated or whidi,if preveonal6 considerations when the standards are on the proposed amendments. One of ewiluated, unay turn out aSner farther applied. These examples were employed the commenters stated that all three evaluation to have mere severe by the Commission in developing both standards were unclear and uselese in consequences than previceoly l
the proposed rule and the interim final that they implied a level of detailed evaluated. (es PR 148SB.)
rules.The notice of proposed rulemaking review of amendment applications far The Commission @M hat it is t
contained standards proposed by the beyond what the staff normally possible, for exarnple that there saay be Commission to be incorporated into 10 performs. When it promulgated the a class of kcense amsha-soaqthe by CFR Part 50 and the statement of tnterim final nile, the Commission stated a licensee w4tidi, while dessgned to considerations contained examples of in msponse to this comment that the improve or increase safety may, en standards have been and will continue balance, involves a significant hazurds amendments to an operating license that are considered "likely" and "not hkely-to be usefulin making the necessary
' consideration because it results in to involve a significant hazards reviews. 48 FR 14864, at 14867 (April 6.
operation of a reactor with a reduced consideration. The examples were 19831. It added that the standards, when safety margin due to other fadors or samples of precedents with which the used along with the examples, will problems (i.e., she net effect is a staff was familian they were enable it to make the requisite reduction in safety of some i
representative of certain kirds of decisions.1d. In this regard,it noted that significance). Id. Such a class of j
circumstances: however, they did not Congress was more than aware of the amendments typically is also proposed cover the entire range of possibilities:
Commission s standards and proposed by a licensee as an interim or final l
nor did they cover every facet of a their exped.tious promulgatron, quotmg resolution of some sigmTicant safety particular situation. Therefore, it was the Senate Report:
issue that was not raised or resolved clear that the standards themselves
.. the Committee notes that the before issuance of the operating ultimately would have to govern Comminion has already issued for publir.
license-and, based on an evaluation of drierminations about whether or not c mment rules including standards f r the new se,fety issue, they may result in determming whether an amendment involves a seduction of a safety magin behewed proposed amendments invoIved no significant hazards consideration. ne to have been present when the leoense significant hazards considerations.
Committee be!Lves that the Commission was issued. In this instance, the The three standards proposed in the should be able to build cpon this past effort, notice of proposed rulemaking were and it expects the Commission to act presence of the new safely issue in the whether operation in accordance with eaped2tiously in promul ating the required review of the proposed amesdmenL at 6
the proposed amendment would not (1) standards within the time specified in section least arguably, could prevent a finding l
involve a significant increase in the 3Cn (i.e within 90 days after enactment). S.
of no significant hazarda consideration.
probability or consequences of an Rep. No.97-113. 9*th Cong ist Sena., at 15 even though the issue ultimately would (1981).
cccident previously esaluated. (2) create be satisfactorily resolved by U the possibility of an accident of a type Similarly, the House noted:
of th dm c d gly, t e Commi sion added a different from any evaluated previously, ne committee amendment provides the new example (vii) to the list of examp!es or (3) involve a significant reduction in a Commasion with the authority to issue and ma' e immedia tely effective amendments to considered likely to involve a significant margin of safety. The interim final rules m
h,(azards consideration.1d.See section i
did not change these standards. They bcenses pnar to the conduct cr completion of i
C}{1)( gow.
did. how ever, change the introductory any heanng required by aection 18a(a) when phrase to make the standards easier to it determines that the amendment invalves no
%' hen the Senete Committee on understand and to use.
significant hazards consideration. However, Environment and Pubhc Works was s
the authenty of the Commission to do so is considering the legislation described As a result of the legislation, the discretionary, and does not negate the above, it commented upon the I
1 Commission formulated separate notice requirement imposed by the Sholly decision Commission's proposed rule before cnd State consultation procedures that that such a hearms. upon request, be provide in all(except emergency) subsequently held. Moreover. th, repo 3, g.
cituations prior notice of amendment Comnuttee's action is in hght of the fact shot The Committee recognizes that reasonable requists.The notices usually make a the Comnussion has already issoedforpuMic persons may ddler on whether a hcense comment rules including standords for amendment involves a significant hazards proposed determination about determining whether on omendment involves consideration. Therefore. the Comminee wheth:r or not significant hazards no sigm3 cont hasards ansiderations. The expects the Commission to develop and
[
consid; rations are involved in Commssion o/so hos a lary hne ofcase-by-promulgate standards that. to the maximum connection with an amendment and, ase precedent.s un /* svluch it has '
extent practicable, draw a clear distinction r
th;refore, whether or not to offer an establishedcriteria for such deserminations.
between license amendments that involve a
{
L opportunity for a hearing before an
,,. H. Rep. No. 9N.2 (part 2),97th Cong,1st significant hazards consideration and those r
amendment is issued;if a hearing Sess., at 26 (1981) (Empha sis added).
that involve no significant hazards
' request is received, a final in regard to the second criterion in the e naderah n.De Coriuninn anticipa1es,for
- xamp si determination is made about whether or proposed rule, a number of commenters 3
o
,t arda w d not it not significant hazards considerations recommended that the Coramission a "no significant hasards consideration" are involved. The decision about establish a threshold level for accident detenninstion for ik.ense amendments to whether or not to issue an amendment consequences (for example, the limits in permit reracxing of spent fuel pool. S Rep.
haa continued to remain one that. as a 10 GR Par
- s00) to eliminate prior No. 9Mts. 97th Cong.,1st Seen., at 15 (1981).
I I
i E
)
R lr'"'
y e
Federal Register / Vol. St. No. 44 / Thursday. March 6.1986 / hies and Aeguladcas W49 The Commission agreed with the process. (48 FR 14868.) (As will be censiderations. ld it noted. in fact, that Committee "that reasonable persons recalled standards were submitted by a under the intents final rule involving the may differ on whether a license petition for rulemaking in 1976 for the standards it would normally provide amendment involves a significant Commission's consideration.) The prior notice llor public comment and an hazards consideration" and it tried "to Commission then explained with respect opportunity for a hearing) for each develop and promulgate standards that.
to the interim final rules that the operating license ausendment request. it to the maximum extent practicable, standards and examples were as clear also stated that use of these standards draw a clear dis:inction between license and certain as the Commission could and examples would help it reach sound amendments that involve a significant make them, noting the Conference decisions about the issues of significant hazards consideration and those that Report admonition that the standards versus no significant hazards invoh e no significant hazards and examples "should ensure that the considerations, and that their use would consideration." (48 FR 14868.)
NRC staff does not resolve doubtful or not prejudge the safety merits of a (Reracking is discussed in section borderhne cases with a finding of no decision about whether to issue a f(C)(2)(b) and !!(D). infm.) The significant hazards consideration."Id.
license amendment. Id. Rather, it Commission stated that the standards The Commission repeats this explained, the standards and the coupled with examples used as admonition to the staff in the response examples were merely screening guidelines help draw as clear a to comments in section ll{C) below.
devices for a decision about whether to d:stmction as praWeable. It decided not With respect to the Conference hold a hearing before as opposed to to include the examples in the text of the Committee's statement, quoted above, after an amendment is issued and could interim final rules in addition to the that the " standards should not require not be said to prejudge the orig:nal standards. but. rather, to keep the NRC staff to prejudge the merits of Commission's final public health and them as guide /mes under the standards the issues raised by a proposed license safety decision to issue or deny the for use by the Office of Nuclear Reactor amendment." the Commission recalled amendment request.ld As explained Restation. /d that it was its general practice to make a above, that decision has remained a In promulgating the interirri final rules, decision about whether to issue a notice separate one, based on separate public the Commission also noted to licensees before or after issuance of an health and safety findings.
that when they consider license amendment together with a decision
- b. ReracAing of Spent fue/ Pools.
amendments outside the examples, it about whether to provide a heanng Before issuance of the two interim final may need additional time for its before or after issuance of the rules, the Commission psovided prior determination on no significant hazards amendment: thus, occasionally, the issue notice and opportunity for prior hearing considerations, and that they should of prior versus post notice was seen by on requests for amendments involving factor this information into their some as including a judgment on the reracking of spent fuel pools When the merits ofissuance of an amendment./d.
schedules for developing and
, For instance, a commenter on the interim final rule on standards was implementing such changes to facility published, the Commission explained design and operation. /d.
proposed rule suggested that application that it was not prepared to say that The Commission stated that the of the criteria with respect to pnor reracking of a spent fuel storage pool intenm final rules thus went a long way notice in many instances will.
will necessarily involve a significiant toward meeting the intent of the necessarily require the resolution of hazards consideration. It stated, legislation. quoting the Conference substantial factual questions which Report:
largely overlap the issues which bear on nevertheless, as shown by the y legislative history of Pub. L 97-415.
specifically of se'ction 12(a), that The conferees also espect the Commission.
at 1486849.The implication of the in promu! gating the regulations required by comment was that the Commission at Congress was aware of the the new subsection (2)tcitil of section 189a.
of the Atomic Energy Act. to establish the prior notice stage could lock itself Commission's practice, noting that standards that to the extent practicable draw into a decision on the merits.
members of both Houses stated, before a cleer distmction between hcense Conversely, the commenter gated that
{ssage of e nt n$e I t law t
d amendments that involve a sigmfacant the staff,in using the no significant
,g,p c, w hazards consideration and those hazards consideration standards. was The report on the Senate side has been amendments that involve no such reluctant to give prior notice of quoted,above: the discussion in the consideration These standards should not amendments because its determination House is found at 127 Cong. Record at H reqt. ire the NRC staff to prejudge the merits about the notice might be viewed as
, 8156. Nov. 5,1981.
of t*.e issues raised by a proposed hcense ame sdment. Rather, they should only require constituting a negative conriotation on The Commission decided not to the 6taff to identify those issues and the merits-include reracking in the list of examples determme whether they involve sigmficant The Commission noted in response that are considered likely to involve a health. safety or en ironmental that the legislation had mooted these significant hazard consideration, cons.derations. These standards should be comments by requiri tg separation of(1) because a significant hazards capable of being apphed with ease and the criteria used for poviding or consideration finding is a technical certainty. and should ensure t ist the NRC dispensing with public notice and matter which has been assigned to the staff does not resolve doubtfil or borderline comment on determinations about no Commission. However,in view of the cases with a finding of no significant hazard
- significant hazards considerations from expressions of Congressional (2) h standards used to make a understanding. the Commission stated ng 37 1 Id determi6ation about whether or not to that it felt that the matter deserved The Commission stated that it had have a prior hearing if one is requested.
further study. Accordingly,it instructed attempted to draft standards that are as Id. at 14869. The Commission explained the staff to prepare a report on this useful as possible. that it had tried to that under the two interim final rules, matter, and stated that it would revisit formulate examples that will help in the the Commission's criteria for public this part of the rule upon receipt and applicati m of the standards, and that notice and comment had been separated review of the staff's report. Id. The l
the standards in the interim final rules from its standards on the determination report is described in detail in section were the product vf a long deliberative about no significant hazards Il[D) below.
j
Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 44 / Thursday, March 6. E66 / Rules and Regulations 7750 In the interim final rule on standards, Mr. DOMENICI. In the statement of prior to a public hraring.134 Corg Rec. (Part the Commission stated that while it is managers.1 direct attention to a paragraph in 111), at S.13292.
awatting its staff's report,it would make section 12. the so-called Sholly provision, in light of the Conference Report and i" i
' d tha ppl "8 findmgs case by case on the question of no significant hazards consideration for ny h,, p n at colloquies it had quoted. the NRC should be especially sensitive to the Commission stated that it would ensure each teracking application giving full issue posed by license amendments that have "that only those amendments that consideration to the technical irreversible consequences "is that paragraph clearly raise no significant hazards circumstances of the case, using the in generat. or specifically the words issues will take effect prior to a public r
standards in i 50 92 of the rule M. It
" irreversible consequences" intended to hearing;(48 FR 14870), and that it would also stated that it did not inte-
. make impose restnctens on the Commission's use do this by providing in i 50.92 for review a no sigmficant hazards conuceration of that authonty beyond the provisions of the of proposed amendments with a view y*j"'r'ph*jguage? Can the Senator clarify finding for reacking based on unproven abaut whether they involve irreversible technology. It added. however, that, y. SIMPSON. I shall. It is not the intention consequences. ld. In this regard, it made where reracking technolegy has been of the managers that the paragraph in clear in example (iii) that an amendment well developed and demonstrated and general nor the words " irreversible which allows a plant to operate at full where the Commission determines on a consequences." provide any restriction on the power during which one or more safety
}
technical basis that reracking involves Commission's use of that authority beyond systems are not operable would be no significant hazards, the Commission the statutory provision in section 189a. Under treated in the same way as other should not be precluded from making that provision. the only determination which examples considered hkely to involve a such a tinding And it noted that,if it,
', "$8'[,'""
,'nt haza significant hazards consideration,i,n y
tn t
determmes that a particular reracking contest. "irresersibihty"is only one of the that it is likely to meet the critena in invohes sigmficant hazards many considerations which we would expect i 50.92. /d.
considerations, it wculd provide an the Commission to consider. It is the The Commission also emphasized that opportunity for a prior hearing. Id.
determination of hazard which is important, the example did not cover all possible r
The Commission also noted that not whether the action is irreversible.
cases, were not necessarily under section 134 of the Nuclear Waste Clearly, there are many irreversible actions representat;ve of all possible concerns.
Polic) Act of1982, an interested party which would not pose a hazard. Thus where may request a "hy bnd" hearing in the Commission determines that n and were set out simply as guidelines.
' n f Id.
ejd n o burther
'Ite Commission left the proposed l
g" connection with reracking. and may, on ti n participate in such a hearing,if one is irreversibihty of that action.
rule intact to the extent that the interim held. It stated that it would publish ir Mr. DOMINICI I thank the Senator for the final rules stated standards with respect the near future a Federal Register nmice clanfication. That is consistent with my to the meaning of "no significant desenbing this type of hearing with n'adings of the language... 134 Cong Rec.
hazards consideration." The standards respect to expansions of spent fuel (brt II). at S.13056 (daily ed. Oct.1.1982).
in the interim final rules were identical storaga capacity and other matters The Commission then noted. 48 FR to those in the proposed rule, though the concerning spent fuel. /J. That notice 14869, that the statement was further attendant language in new I 50.92 as can be found at 50 FR 41662 (October 15.
explained in a celloquy between well as in i 50.58 was revised to make 1985).
Senators Mitchell and Hart, as follows:
the determination easier to use and
- c. Amendments Involving /eterersible Ccasequences Congress expressed Mr. MITCHai The portion of the understand. To supplement the some concern about amendments statement of manaprs discussing section 12 standards incorporated into the of the report. the so-c611ed Sholly provision.
Commission's regulations, the guidance r
involving i reversible consequences, as stresses that in determirJng whether a embodied in the examples was evidenced in the Conference Report; proposed ernendment to a facility operating referenced in the procedures of the The conferees ir.'end that in determinmg hcense imotves no significara hazards Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
whether a proposed I: cense amend nent consideration, the Comfrussion "should be copies of whhh were placed in the l
intohes no sigmfacant bzards consideration. especially sensitive.. to license the Commission should be especially amendments that have irreversible Commission's Public Document Room sensitne to the issue posed by bcense consequences / Is my understandmg correct and sent to licensees. States, and amendments that hase irresers.ble that the statement means the Commission interested persons. It was the i
consequences (such as these permittirg on should take special care in evaluating. for Commission s intention that any request increase in the amount of e'fluents or possible hazardous considerations.
for an amendment meet the standards in
)
radiation ematedfrom a facday or c!!owing amendments that involve irreversible the regulations. and that the examples
[
o facdity to opeacte for a period of time ennsequences?
simply provide supplementary guidance.
i without full sa'ety pro:ections 1. ln those Jr. HART. The Senator's understanding ie
- d. &les of Amendments That Are c:ses. issuing the order m adsante of a correct. As you know, this provision seeks t Considemdl./kely To Involve haring would. as a practical matter.
overrule the holdmg of the U.S. Court of fortclose the pubhc's nght to hase its views Appeals for the District of Columbia m Sholly Significant Haza;ds Considetutions Am 1istedBelow.The statement oI l rules considered. In addition. ;he hcensmg board against Nuclear Regulatory Commission.nat considerations for the interim fina would often be unable to order any case involved the ventmg of radioactive sutstantia! rehef as a tesult of an after-the.
k.ypton gas from the damaged Three Mile listed the following examples of i
fict heanng According!y. the conferees Island Unit 2 reactor-an irreversible action.
amendments that the Commission intend the Commission be sensitive to those As in this case. once the Commission has considered likely to involve significant licensi amendments which involve such approved a license amendment, and it has hazards considerations. ld. It explained irrevirsible consequences (Emphasis added.1 gone into effect it could prove impossible to that unless the specific circumstances of Conf. Rep. No.97-884. 9 th Cong. 2d Sess., at correct any overstghts of fact or errors of 37-3a (1882).
Judgment.Derefore the Commission has an a license amendment request lead to a
[
contrary conclusion when measured The Commission noted (48 FR, at i p'i$a n fa am nd e having against the standards in i 50.92 then, t
14869) that this statement was explained irreversible consequences. to insure that only pursuant to the procedures in i 50.W. a m a colloquy between Senators Simpson those amendments that clearly raise no proposed amendment to an operating cnd Domenici, as follows:
sigmficant hazards issues will take effect license for a facility licensed under
[
O
1 P
/
Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 44 / Thursday. Mardi 6,1986 / Rules and Ragui,ations 7751 j
I So.21(b) or i 50.22 or for a testing (iii) For a nuclear power reactor, a elsewhere in the nuclear industry or in facility will la ely be found to involve
. change resulting from a nuclear reactor other industriaa. and does not involve a s;gmficant hazards considerations. if core reloading, if no fuel assemblies sagnificant inaease in the prMty or operation of the facility in accordance significantly different imm those found canaequences of an accident previously with the proposed amendment involves previously acceptable to the NRC for a evaluated or create the poselbility of a one or more of the following:
previous core at the facility in question new or differset kind of accident from DJ A significant relaxation of the are involved. This assumes that no any accident previonly evaluated; and crit ria used to establish safety limi's.
significant changes are made to the (2)ne repaired or replacement t
liil A significant relaxation of the acceptance cr?eria for the technical component or system does not result in bees for hmiting safety system settmgs specifications, that the analytical a significant chenge in its safety or hmitmg conditions for operation.
methods used to demonstrate function or a significant reduction in any (in) A significant relaxation in hm! ting conformance with the technical safety hmit {or hmMmg condition of conditions for operation not specifications and regulations are not operation) associated with the accompanied by compensatory changes. significantly changed, and that NRC has component or system.
rendmons, or actions that maintain a previously found such raethods (x) An exparision of the storage commensurate level of safety (stich as acceptable.
capacity of a spent fuel pool when all of 1
a!!awmg a plant to operate at full power (iv) A relief granted upon the following are satisfied:
durmg a period in which one or more demonstration of acceptable operation (1) The storage expansion method safety systems are not operable).
from an operating restnction that was mnsists of either replacing existing b 1 Renewal of an operating hcense.
imposed because acceptable operation racks with a design which allows closer (s l For a nuclear power plant an was not yet demonstrated.This assumes spacing between stored spent fuel increase in authonzed maximum core that the operating restriction and the assemblies or placing additional racks pow er les el cntens to be applied to a request for of the original design on the pool floor if (vi) A change to technical relief have been established in a prior space permits; specifications or other NRC approval re[ieQad that it is f
a 7
Y
, hm (2)The storage expansion rae,thod msohmg a sigmficant unreviewed does not involve rod consolidation or
(
c g in plant operation (3
of the poolis maintained v
n s
co o
i designed to improve safety but which, operating facility, a relief gra'nted from less than or equal to E95; and due to other factors. in fact allos.; plant operation with safety mar.gms an operating restriction that was (4) No new technology or unproven sigmficantly reduced from those imposed because the construction was technology is utilized m either the behes ed to have been present when the not yet completed satisfactorily. This is constmcuan process a the analydcal hcense was issued. /d intended to involve only restrictions techniques necusay to justify the where it is justified that construction expansion.
TI/n o/ e 88 n o mpleted sadsfactmHy.
E Raponsa to Caninents on InWin G
er d oL /
Ac ge w mai Rulu Sn:mprant Hazards Considerotions Are L:sted Below. The statement of in a me acrease a the probabihtyor g
considerations for theinterim final rules
'7nt o somewhat greater detailin an '
a isy e e e a
hsted the following examples of safety margin. but where the results of attachment so SECY-85-209A.
amendments the Commission the change are clearly withis all A. Clarify ofShmdaMs considered not likely to involve acceptable criteria with respect to the sigmficant hazards considerations. 48 system or component specified in the J.J Com.mts-A group of FR 14869. It explained that unless the Standard Review Plan. eg. a diange comrnenters state that the three speufic circumstances of a license resulting from the application of a small standards in i 50.92(c) are unclear and amendment request lead to a contrary refinement of a previously used argue that the examples in the statement conclusion when measured against the calculational model or design method.
of considerations-which they believe stdndards in i 50.92. then, pursuant to (vii) A change to conform a license to are dearer than the standards-should i
the procedures in i 50.91 a proposed changes in the regulations, where the be made part of the rule; otherwise, they amendment to an operating license for a license change results in very minor
. aque, the examples have no legal
]
facility licensed under i 50.21(b) or changes to facility operations clearly in significance.
I 50.22 or for a testing facility willlikely keeping with the regulations.
Re8Ponse-The Commission disagrees be found to involve no significant (viii) A change to a license to reflect a with the request. As explained in hazards considerations. if operation of minor adjustment in ownership shares response to the comments on the the facihty in accordance with the among co-owners already shown in the proposed rule (see 48 FR 14864) the proposed amendment involves only one license. /d.
commenters are correct that the or more of the following:
[As discussed below, the Commission examples have no bindmg legal (i) A purely administrative change to has added examples (ix] and (x)in significance. However, they do provide technical specifications: for example, a response to comments on the interim guidance to the staff, licensees and to change to achieve consistency final rules.]
the general public about the way tl:e throughout the technical specifications.
(ix) A repair or replacement of a standards may be interpreted by the correction of an error,or a change in major component or system important to Commission.The Commissica did nomenclature.
safety,if the following conditions are consider -ha the standards and (ii) A change that constitutes as met:
examples as a single set of criteria in the additional limitation, restriction, or (1) The repair er replacement process interim final rules, but decided against control not presently included in the involves practices which have been this because (1) the standards and technical specifications, eg, a more successfully implemented at least once examples had proved useful over time, stringent surveillance requirement.
on sisnilar ocasponents or systems (ii) the staff had seed all three standards
l 7752 Feder:1 R: gist:r / Vol. 51, No. 44 / Thursd;y, March 6,1986 / Rtil;s cnd Regul:tions 4
end most of the examples well before issue of significant hazards.See, for compare the safety margin before the L
they were pubbshed in rule form, and instance the discussion in section (ni) the approach had proved adequate.
II(F)(1.3) below,
, amendment to that which would exist f
i after the am'endment to determine Upon reconsideration, the Commission 2.4 Comments-One commenter whether that amendment would has decided to retain the standards as requests that NRC should consider only significantly reduce the margin. In they were set out in the interim final
" credible accident scenarios"in applying this standard to determine rule. See the response in section ll(D) evaluating amendment requests against whether a certain amendment involves below for a description of the standards. the first two standards. It also suggests significant hazards considerations, the 1.2 Comment-One commenter that, with respect to the third standard intent is to assess just the reduction its believes that the interim final rules (significant reduction in safety margins), margin from that amendment and not to
" unduly" and " improperly" limit the Commission initially should assess all prior reductions in margin that freedom of speech and that minor determine the extent of the existing resulted from prior amendments changes in a plant can lead to severe safety margin before decidirig the because these have already been heelth and safety consequences, such as significance of a reduction, because the considered. Consequently, the the 1983 anticipated transient without extent of the existing margin is clearly Commission has not accepted this scram (ATWS) at the Salem nuclear relevant to the Commission's suggestion.
power plant.
determination.
2.5 Comments-One commenter Response-It is unclear how the On the other hand, another points out that the three standards are interim final rule might limit freedom of commenter argues that it is virtually identical to the criteria in speech. It is clear, though, that some inappropriate to specify a percentage i 50.59 for determining whether amendment requests entail changes to a change above which the change unreviewed safety questions exist, and plant requiling a review of whether or becomes significant. It notes that when states that this similarity is appropriate.
not previously unevaluated accidents.
the safety margin is three orders of Another commenter makes the same pose snere consequences. As explained magnitude, a ten percent reduction is point but notes an important difference f
above, before issuing any amendment, clearly not significant. and that when in i 50.59, namely, that the word the Commission is required by the the safety margin is fifteen percent, a significant"is absent in paragraphs L
Atomic Energy Act (Act) to find that comparable percentage reduction may (a)(2)(i) to (a)(2)(iii) of that section. It there is adequate protection for the be significant. It also suggests that the suggests that i 50.59 should be amended public health and safety. However, a cumulative effects of successive changes to make it identical with i 50.92(c).
i determination that an amendment to one :,ystem must also be considered.
Response-Sections 50.59 and 50.92 involves 'no significant hazards and not merely the m, dividual change consideration includes a finding under which is being subjected to review at serve twp different purposes.The i
criteria in i 50.59(a)(2) are used to the three standards that the change does any given time.
decide whether a proposed change, test, not involve a significant increase in
, Response-The first comment is previously evaluated accident similar to the original petition (see or experiment involves an "unreviewed probabilities or consequences. that it section 1(C)(1) above) which proposed safety 9.uestion? Section 5E59 is used to d'
P l'
hether p" does not present a new type of accident standards limited,to "ma jor credible C
ion ap 9,), n es g for not previoush evaluated. and that it reactor accidents. The Commission 6
does not mvolve a significant decrease disagrees with this comment-as it did the licensee of an operating reactor to m safety margins.
previously-because it allows too much make changes to it or to the precedures Thus, the concem raised by the room for argument about the meaning of as described in the safety analysis comment is related if at all, only to
" credible"in various accident scenarios report, or to conduct tests or j
cmendments that involve significant and does not include accidents of a type experiments not described in the safety hazards. Procedures goveming these different from those previously analysis report. The licensee may not types of amendments are unaffected by evaluated, which is one of the criteria make a change without such approval,if this rule change. See. e g, section 182a.
for evaluating no significant hazards the change mvolves an unreviewed of the Act.
considerations.
safety question. To insert the term J.3 Comment-One commenter The second commenter suggests that, "significant"into the criteria obviously suggests that the only standard that is in assessing the degree of reduction in would raise the threshold for making a l
n:eded is one that simply identifies margin in determining whether an determination. It would permit licensees those license amendments which make amendment involves significant hazards to exercise far greater discretion.a an accident possible.
considerations, the Commission should judging which changes require Rasponse--The standard suggested by assess the cumulative effects (on Commission review. Wide variations t
the commenter is simple to state but margin) of successive changes to cne among licensees might be expected. If t
impractical. An amendment may involve system not m : rely the individual the Commission has not reviewed an a previously reviewed issue and not change in margin brought about by the issue. it should deliberate and decide t
eller the conclusions reached amendment in question.The whether its review is appropriate.
concerning accident probabilities or Commission believes that such a Therefore, the comment has been cons:quences. In such a case, the suggestion would be inconsistent with rejected. The Commission is considering am:ndment may involve a system or its staffs long-time practice in assessing this subject, as discussed in S-ction component that is significant to an the degree of reduction in margin, would II(K) below.
svaluation of a design basis accident yet be inconsistent with the thrust of the J.6 Comment-One commenter not involve a significant hazards three standards on no significant generally agrees with tb ' interim final consideration. This suggestion changes hazards consideration, and would result rules but believes that the word I
th definition of"significant hazards in multiple counting of margin changes.
"sijnificant" should be dermed. if only considerations" and, thereby, changes The standard states that the to forestall court challenges by persons the st:ndards. The three standards Commission is to determine whether the disagreeing with NRC. It suggests that r
given in the interim final rules together amendment will result in a significant NRC should create some sort of with the examples are directed to the reduction in margin. The intent is to mechanism to resolve disputes between i
rL
j Federal Register / Vol. 51, N:,44 / Thursd:y, M:rch 6,1986 / Rules cnd Regulations 7753 the staff, a State, or other parties over consequences of an accident previously the NRC staff to assure that doubtful or whether or not an a aendment request evaluated or create the possibihty of a borderline cases are not found to involves significant hazard new or dWerent kind of r.ccident from involve no significant hazards considerations.
any accid at previously evaluated; and consideration. As explained above, the Response-The advantage of the (2) The repaired or rep?acement decision about whether to issue an notice provisions of the interim final component or system does not result in amendment is based on a separate l
rules is that they provide an opportunity a significant change in its safety health and safety determination, not on for comment on proposed function or a significant reduction in any a determination about significant determinatio is. Based on a particular safety limit (or limiting condition of hazards considerations.
proposal in an amendment request, the operation) associated with the Commission welcomes any and all component or system.
D. Retockings persons' comments about the in this context, it once r. gain bears Comments-A group of commenters "s:gnificance" of the proposed action, repeating that the examp!es do not state that rerackings should be As:de from using examples as cover all possible examples and may not considered amendments that pose guidelines, it believes that the term be representative of all possible significant hazards considerations, in "significant" should not be defined in concerns and problems. As problems are light of the Commission's past practice the abstract, but should be left to case.
resolved and as new information is and the understanding of Congress that by-case resolution, developed, the staff may refine the the practice would be continued.
B. Clarity of Examples examples and add new ones,in keeping Another group of commenters agrees with the standards of this final rule.
Many commenters argue about the As to the second set of comments, see with the Commission's position that the clarity of the various examples m the the response to comment 1(A)(1.6) significant hazards determination on "hk ely" and "not likely" categones.
above. Finally, as noted above, the each amendment request to expand a Aditionally, some want to change, to guidance m the examples already has specific spent fuel pool should be based add to, or to subtract from the examples. been sent to alllicensees and others.
on the Commission's technical judgment.
Response-Ir its decision to issue the eass I a c A co p te set of' C Cassipcodon oMecisions two interim Snal rules, the Commission comments (as summarized) is attached Comments-Two commenters argue directed the staff to prepare a report to SECY-85-209A.
that the standards pose complex which (1) exarr.ines the agency's Aditionally, two commenters argue questions that " require a level of experience to date on spent fuel pool that the word "significant'in the analysis that goes far beyond the initial expansion reviews and (2) provides a esamples should be defined so as not to sorting of issues that Congress technical judgment on the basis for i
leave " critical decisions to the authorized." They repeat an argument which various methods to expand spent unreviewable judgment of the staff."
made when the standards were fuel pools may or may not pose Finally, another commenter requests published as a proposed rule, namely, significant hazards considerations.
that the guidance embodied in both sets that "the use of these standards cannot The staff contracted with Science of examples should not only be help but require the NRC staff to make Applications, Inc. (SAI) to perform an referenced in the procedures of the an initial determination, well before the evaluation of whether increased storage i
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, formal hean'ng (if any)is held, of the of spent fuel could pose significant but that it should also be formally health and safety merits of the proposed hazards considerations in light of the transmitted to alllicensees in the form license amendment." And they argue guidance in the interim final rules. SAI of a generic letter, regulatory guide, or that Congress did not authorize NRC to provided a report entitled. " Review and other such document.
make such a determination in advance Evaluation of Spent Fuel Pool Expansion Response-The examples are merely of the hearing on the merits. (A third Potential Hazards Considerations."
guidelines and the Commission feels the commenter agrees with this argument.)
SAI-84-221-WA Rev.1 (july 29,1983).
present examples are adequate. A list of in sum, these commenters would prefer On the basis of that report, the staff examples of all possible situations standards that simply allow for the informed the Commission in SECY would be interminably long. and it is not sorting of issues, rather than. as they 337 (August 15,1983) of the results of its the Commission's intent to provide such argue, standards that allow the staff to study and included the SAI report. (Both a listing. However, to clairfy the determine issues which are " virtually the report and the study are available as Commission's position on the repair or the same" as those it determines when indicated above.)
replacement of a major component or deciding whether or not to grant the The staff provided the following views system important to safety, the license amendment.
to the Commission.
following example has been added to In this same vein, both commenters the list of examples (m, section argue that the standards contravene (1) NRC experience to date with respect to 1(C)(2)(e)) above considered not likely Congress' intent in that the Commission
'$",'h"((
pan'
, on o e. e staff has to involve significant hazards does r.ot avoid resolving " doubtful or consiuerations:
borderline cases with a finding of no been providing prior notice and opportunity for prior hearing on amendments involving (ix) A repair or replacement of a significant hazards consideration."
expansion of spent fuel pool storage major component or system important to Response-The Commission disagrees. capacity. The opphcotions wereprenoticed safety,if the following conditions are with the commenters, as explained in es a matter of discretion because ofpossible met:
the previous discussion above on this puMic interest. This was the basis cited for (1) The repair or replacement process very point. It should also be noted that Frenoticing these applications in statements im olves practices which have been one reason that determinations on
,i,$^,8",'
C *$"i{$b successfully implemented at least once significant hazards considerations,are ave been on similar components or systems divided into " proposed determinations" received on 24 of the se apphcations for amendments received to date to increase the elsewhere in the nuclear industry or in and " final determinations"is to help storage capacity of onsue spent fuel pools. In other industries, and does not involve a sort the issues initially. In this process of most cases, the comments and requests to significant increase in the probability or sorting, the Commission hereby charges intervene have been resolved without actual
l 7754 Fedri Regist:r / Vd. 51, No. 44 / Thursday, M:rch 8,1986 / Rules and Damiencmo l
hearings before an ASLB [ Atomic Safety and about one fourth ofits core at each refusang amparisiental data and am coarideasd very Licensing Board).
After a year of storage, about 99% of the enhable.
Of the 96 apphcations. 31 have been a initial radioactivity has decayed.
In the interim final rule, tinara==3= ion second or third apphcation for the same (2) Technical judgement on the basis which stated that it was not the Intent to naaka a ao poo!(s). All of these applications have a apent fuel pool expansion amendment may significant hazarda consideration findmg proposed reracking to mcrease the storage or may not pose a significant basards capacity-that is. replacing existing spent consideration:
based on unproven technology. Reracking to
{
I fuel storage racks with new racks that permit The tacha.ical evaluation of whether er not allow a closer spacing between fuel closer spacing of spent fuel assemblies. Two an increased spent fuel pool storage capacity e,sembhas can be done by pfoven of the apphcations involved more than simply involves potential hazards consideration is technologies. De double tiering method of replacing the racks on the spent fuel pool centered on the Commission a three expanolon can also be done by peren floor In one case. the capacity was increased standards tn the interim final rule-tNinology. Rod consohdation, however, b> a method referred to as double-tiering. In First does increasing the spent fuel pool bh new tenology and inesweeed l
this method. a rack is filled with aged spent capacity significantly meresse the probebility handlms of highly radanactive coatponents of fuel w hJe sittmg on the pool floor: once fdled, or consequences of accidents previously y
g the rock is resed and placed on top of evaluated? As d:scussed in the SAI report, in sumraary, both rod consolidation and anotner fWed rack. Doub!e-tiering w as reracking to anow cineer spacing of fuel double tiering represent potenmal safety apprcred by the staff fo* peint Beach 1 and 2 assembhes dos not significantly mcrease the g
g bs amendments issued on March 4.197. ne probability or consequences of acddents jF.
g other method that has been proposad to previously analyzed. However, the rod double tien.ng may significantly increase the j
increase pool storage capacity is refe rred to consohdation method may increase the probabahty of accidents previously analyzed.
as rod conschd. tion Rod censohdation probabihty of a fuel drop accident by a factor Replacing existing rocks with a design which ins olses dismant!.r g cr cutting apart the fuel d w Mam M h iman in h numW
&mdePWMMMNdWM assembly and patt.ng the indmdual fuel rods of assembly hits and involves handling of fuel assemblies or placing additional rauks of J
closer together Storage of ordy the fuel rods, highly radioactwe fuel assembly costponents.
the ong+naldesign on the poo Soorif space without the spacers. end caps and other Double tienng of racks requires an inaeased pernata (a subset of rerackmalis considered haedware, can mcrease storage capacity by frequency in hitmg heavy loads over the not hkely to involve significant hazards 60 to 100 pe-cent compared to storage of non-spent fuel pool which would also increase the considerations if several condrhone are met.
{
i d:sassembled fuel Rod censohdation-in pr babihty of an accident.
. First. no new technology or unproven conjunction with rerackmg-tas been Second, does incressmg the spent fuel technology is utikzed in either the requested for on!> one plant-Mame Yankee.
storage capacity create the possibihty of a construction process or in the analytsal r d:fferent kind of accident from any The staff's reuew of this apphcation was new completed a year ago. but tte ap,;hcation is accident previously analyzed? He etsff, as techniques necessary to pastify the pend.ng before an Atom.c Safet) and well as SAL have not identified any new expansion. Cend the Keff of the poolis lacensmg Boa.M We base approved 85 Catesones or types of accidents as a result of mamtained less than or equal to (L91 A Keff amendments muhing spent fuel pool storage rerackirg i all w doser spacing for the fuel of greater than 0 95 snay be justifiable for a expansions and the rest are sn!I bemg assembbes. Double tiering and rod particular application but it would go beyond processed. A detailed table ind.cating the c ns lidation. however, do present new the presently accepted staff criteria and i
agenefs expenence to date with respect to accident scmari a which may not be would potentially be a significant hazards i
spent fuel pool espansion is contamed in the bounded by previous accident analysis for a consideration. Rerecking to allow claser SAI report. As of now.esery operatmg Nen poolIn au macMng mdews spacing or the placing of additional racks of i
au e cidents the onginal design on the pool floor, which 5
reactor except B:g Rock Pmnt has received p et (o
l satisfies the two peeceding criteria, would be
}.
g 9
apprual for at least une terackmg or had the closen.pacirs storage method approved with conservatively bounded by the valuations sinlar t e2cmple (iii) on riuclear reactor their in'tial hcense cited in the safety evaluation reports c re rej admg ander examples of
)
The techmcal review of requests to supportina each amendment.
amendments that are not considered likely to increase spent fuel pool Ltorage capacity Third does increasing the spent fuel pool involve significant hazards considerations.
ins olves evaluate.6 the physical and storage capacity significantly reduca a Id (Ernphasis added.)
mecharucal processes w hich may create margin of safety? Neither the staff nor SA) potential hazards such as cntJcahty have identified sigrdficant reductions in The staff concluded in its technical considera tions. seismic and mechanical safety margins due to increastng the storage judgement that a request to expand the loading. pool coohng long term corrosion and capacity of spent fuel pacts. De expansicn storage capacity of a spent fuel pool oxidation of fuel cladding. and probabiliues 7; ay result in a minor increase in pool which satisfies the follo*ing is 3
and consequences of various postulated temperatures by a few degrees, but this heet considered not likely to involve cccidents and failures of decayed spent fuel.
P4d ine.rease is generally well wrthin the significant hazards considerations:
Also, the neutron poison and rack structural design limitations of the installed cooling materials must be shown to be compatible systems. In some cases it may be necessary (1) e storage expansion method consists with the pool environment for a sigraficant to increase the heat removal capacity by of either replacing existing rocks with a period of time due to the uncertainties as to relatively minor changes in the coohng des gn which allows closer spacing between how long the storage wd! actually be required sys'em. Ie., by increasing a purrp capacity.
stored spent fuel aesemblies or placing cn site. Howes er. potential safety hazards But in all cases, the temperature of the pool additional racks of the original design on the will remain below design values. He rmall
- Uow hpaw permus, associated with spent fuel pool expansions kneesse in the total amount of fission (2) De storage expansion method does not are not as large as those associated with the i
rezctor operation because the purpose of the products in the poolis not a significant factor involve r d cxmsolidation,or double trering.
in accident considerations. The increased (3)The Keff of the poolis mamtained less exp:nsion is to allow longef term storage of storage capacity may result in an increase in than u equal to a95, and r
eged spent fuel Since rnost plants are now on the poo! reactivity as measured by the (y No uw technology or unprom sn 18 month refueling cycle and the NRC is processing a second expansion request neutron multiplication factor (Keff). However technology is utilized in either the after extensive study, the staff determined in construction process or the analytical tpphcation in many instances, the present 1976 that as long as the maximum neutron techniqyes necessary to justify the exp;nsion requests are to allow continued multiplication factor was lees than or equal awpensmn.
storage of spent fuel that has decayed over a to 0.95, then any change la the pool reactivity decsde along with the normal discharge of would not sigm$cantly rednoe a margin of TMs judpent was band m 6e relatively new spent fuel for which the pool safety regardless of the alwage capaaty of staff's review of 90 applications and the wIs originally designed Typically a PWR the pool resu.t of the SAI study, which indicates will rep! ace about one third of its core at The techniquaa utihzed to calculate Keff that if a spent fuel pool expansion occh refuebng and a typical BWR will replace have been bench-marked against request satisfics the above criteria then 9
.E
Feder;l Register / V:1. 51, NA 44 / 'Ihursd:y, Mnrch 6,1966 / Rules and Regulations 7755 2
it meets the three standards in the
" sensitivity" to significant, irreversible ne Commission has not accepted the interim final rules in that it:
consequences) contrevenes Congress' last two commenters' suggestions.He (1) Does not involve a significant increase intent.
legislation clearly specified that the in the probability or consquences of an Another commenter requests that a Commission should be sensitive to the accident previously evaluated:
State and the public should have a say kinds of circumstances outlined by the in Does not create the possibility of a new about any amendment request involving commenters. 'llie interim final rule or d.fferent kind of accident from any an environmentalimpact before NRC repeats this language and seeks to accident previously evaluated; and issues an amendment. It wants more insure that the Commission's staff will (31 Does not involve a sigmficant reduction from the Commission than the statement evaluate each case with respect to its in a ma gin of safety.
in the interim final rules that the own intrinsic circumstances.
Finally. the staff stated to the
" Commission will be particularly Commission that:
sensitive to such impacts.
F.EmergencySituations Another commenter asserts that 2.2 Comments-One commenter
.certain situations which invo,1ve requests that the term " emergency" be a ea cry mus e atua e n case-by. case basis.There are secondary issues irrreversible consequences. such as deleted from the rule because it could be which may be associated with a spent fuel permanent increases in the amount of confused with a different use of this pool expansion. but they must be considered effluents or radiation emitted from a ierm in a final ru'e heued on April 1, on their own technical merit as a separate facility, should be treated like " stretch 1983 (48 FR 13980) involving the issue. As an example, transfemng fuel to power" situations. It argues that this applicability of hcer.se conditions and another site for storage or transfernng fuel in class of amendments should not be technical specifications in an a cask to another casite spent fuel pool if considered likely to involve significant emergency. See iI 50.54(x) and 50.72(c) requested. must both be evalveted on a hazards considerations as long as the -
It suggests that the pbease " warranting In olYsignNca*nt$ia ar cor[s$r t ons.
discharge or emission level does not expedited treatment" or some similar exceed those evaluated in the Safety phrase could be used Listead of the The Commission has accepted its Analysis Report, the Final term" emergency."
staf!'s judgment, discussed above. it has Environmental Statement or generically Two other commente s request that added the following new example (x) to by rulemaking (i.e., Part 50, Appendix I).
I 50.91(a)(5)(involving emergency the list of examples in the "not likely" This commenter adds that any situations) be clarified to make clear category,m section 1(C)(2){e) for temporaryincrease within generally that an emergency situation can exist reracking requests satisfying the four recognized radiation protection whenever it is necessary that a plant not criteria noted above (Reracking requests standards. such as those in 10 CFR Part in operation return to operation or that a that do not meet these criteria will be
- 20. shenld be treated similarly.
evaluated case by case.)
Moreover.it requests that these derated plant operate at a higher level of powergeneration.One of the (x) An expansion of the storage situations, should be included as capacity of a spent fuel pool when all of examples in the "not likely" category.
commenters argues that unnecessary the following are satisfied:
On the other hand, another economic injury or impact on a (1) The storage expansion method commen er argues that hcense generating system should also be class fled as an emergency situation. It consists,of either replacing existing amendm ents involving temporary.
recommends that i 50.91(a)(5) be racks with a design which allows closer waiving of radiation relea,se limitations amended by inserting, after the words spacmg between stored spent fuel (so that eirborne radioactive waste can.
assemblies or placing additional racks, be released at a rate in excess of that derating or shutdown of the nuclear of the ongmal design on the pool floor tf permitted-an issue in the Sholly power plant" the words " including any space permits; decision). should involve significant prevention of either resumption of does not m, storage expansion methodhazards considerations and*
operation or increase in power output."
(2) The volve rod consolidation or consequently, a prior hearing.
The other commenter conrv-with these I
double tiering.
Res w rds and would add the nords.up to
[3)The Keff of the poolis maintained with thonse-The Commission disagrees its licensed power level after *, power e comment that i 50.92(b) less than or equal to 0.95; and contravenes Congress' intent. That output.
(4) No r.ew technology or unproven section is taken almost verbatim from Another commenter suggests that an technology is utilized in either the the Conference Report (see section emergency situation should also exist construction process or the analytical 1(C)(2)(c)in this preamble) and is where a shutdown plant could be techniques necessary to justify the entirely consistent with the colloquy of prevented from starting up because the expansion.
the Senators quoted in that section.
Commission had failed to act in a timely E. Irrerersible Consequences Before NRC issues an amendment, a way.
State and the public can have a say Several commenters agree with these Comments-One commenter notes about any amendment request that comments, arguing that emergency that license amendments involving involves an environmentalimpact.The situations should (1) be broadly defined, irreversible consequences (such as those procedures described before have been (2) be available when a plant is permitting an increase in the amount of c'esigned so that at the time of NRC's shutdown and cannot startup without a effluents or radiation emitted from a proposed determination (1) the State license amendment, and (3) include facility or allowing a facility to operate within which the facility is located is situations where an amendment is for a period of time without full safety consulted. (2) the public can comment needed (as is the case with exigent protections) require prior hearings so as on the determination, and (3) an circumstances) to improve protection to not to foreclose the public's right to have interested party can request a hearing.
public health and safety.
Its views considered. This commenter is Section 50.92(b) simply buttresses the Response 'llte Commission especially concerned about the TMI-2 point that the Commission will be understands that the term " emergency" clean up and about the TMI-1 steam especially sensitive to the types of is used in different ways in various generator tube repairs. It argues that irreversible impacts described by the sections of its regulations. However, the i 50.92(b) (which requires Commission commenters, legislation and its legislative history.
7756 Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 44 / Thursday, March 6,1988 / Rules and Regulations quoted above in section 1(A). are very modified and a new & Sn91(a)(7) has notice and an opportunity forprior.
clear on the use of that term and been added to clarify the problem. With heanns specifically do use that term:
the "Sholly" regulations now in piece, consequently. the term must be used as there are now two poemble types of C. Enggest Cucassassamsee a touchstone for the Commission's emergencies:
2.2 Comments-One commenter regulations.
(a) a " safety-related emergency"in The Commission agrees with the which immediate NRC action may be suggests that the two examples of commenters about need to broaden the necessary to protect the public health exigent circumstancas are unnecessarily defmition of "et ergency situations."
and safety; and narrow kcause both involve pohuwially The Conference Report quoted above (b) the " emergency" referred to in the lost opportunities to inaplement described " emergency situations" as
,Sholly legislation in which the prosrpt improvements in safety during a plant encompassing those cases in which issuance of a license amendment is outage.The commenter recommends immediate action is necessary to required m order, for instance, to avoid that the Commission make clear that pres ent the shutdown or derating of a a shutdown. An example of this type of these examples were not meant to be plant. There may be situations where an emergency is where prompt action is Itm ting and that exigent circumstances the need to prevent shutdown or needed for contmued full. power can occur whenever a proposed derating can be equivalent in terms of operation but not necessarily to protect amendment involves no s**
impact to the need to startup or to go to the public heahh and safety (health and h4 ma deration aMe lim a higher power lesel. The Commission safety, arguably, is protected by the Meutre the avoidig dday in belies es that expandmg the definition of shutdown, which would occur if the issuance will provide a significant "emerp.ency situation" to include these.
, emergency license amendment wre sak ty, environmental, reliability, situations in not inconsistent with not issued). This " emergency is more in economic, or other benefit.
Congress' mtent. Thus the Commission the nature of an economic emergency for Another commenter requests that has decided to adopt the thrust of these the licensee.
exigent circumstances include instances comments and has changed $ 50.91(a)(5)
Tw fundamentally different (1) where a licensee a plant is shutdown accordingly. See also response to approaches to amending a license and the licenece needs an amendment to comment in section ll(Fl(1.3) below.
fra these two diffuent types of. arise Martup and (2)involvmg stgnancant 1.2 Comment-Section 50.91(a)(5) m ugency:
based conshahns.h cemnM
(*)
}
Admm.For a safetprelated emergency, the argues that both such cases entall delay s*stes that the Commission will dechne istrative Procedure Act and the and a sigmScant financial burden on to dispense with notice and comment procedure. "if it determines that the Commission's own regulations (10 CFR licensees.
licensee has fa: led to make a timely 2.2@ authorize (if not compel) tk Response-As explam, ed above, the application for the amendment in order issuance of an immediately effective examples were meant merely as I
to create the emergency and to take rder amending a license without regard guidance and were meant to cover I
advantage of the emergency provision."
t whether the amendment mvolves circumstances where a net safety One commenter requests that the rule significant hrzards considerations and benefit might be lost if an amendment specify what is meant by the term without the need to make a finding on were not issued in a timely msnner. Tha
.. timely application" n significant hazards considerations or Commission agrees with the first i
Response-The prosision cited by the
%n provide a prior Sholly-type of notice.
commenter that the examples should be commenter is clear enough. It is (b) For an
- emergency where a read as also covermg these extracted aln.ost verbatim from the prompt amendment is required to circumstances where there is a net Conference Report. The Report prevent the shutdown but not to protect increase in safety or reliabihty or a indicated that a " licensee should not be the public health and safety, an significant environmental benefit.
imme ately enedve beme j
able to tak. advantage of an emergency "d
As to the first point of the second itself" and thus that the Commission's regulatiens "should insure that the be ssued
{
c mment, the Commission believes th,at e
emergency situation exception under involves no significant hazards there may be,' exigent circumstances which may involve start-up of a considerations' (a) Where an shutdown plant. in keeping with the section 12 of the conference agreement Consequent!y:
"will not apply if the licensee has failed to apply for the license amendment in a immediately effective license thrust of the definition of"amergency timely fashion." Further:
amendment is needed to protect the sitiations," the " exigent circunsstances" public health and safety, the m I 50.91(a)(6) will include " start-To prevent abuses of th provision. the Commission can issue an immediately up"and " increase in power levels". The conferees espect the Commission to effective order amending a license discussion in section III(A) responds to independently assess the licensee's reasons for fadure to file an application sufficiently in regardless of whether the amendment the commenter's second pom, t.
edsence of the threatened closure or desating involves significant hazards L2 Carirments-One commenter states of the facility.
considerations and without prior notice that the public notice procedures for and prior hearing:
exigent cit.:urnstances should be no y
J.3 Comment-One commenter (b) Where an immediately effective different from those for emergency requests that NRC explain how it will license amendment is needed, for situations.
process an amendment request that instance, only to prevent the shutdown Two commenters oppoes the use of involvzs both an emergency situation but not to protect public health and press relesses or display advertising ir.
cnd a significant bazard consideration.
safety, the Commission may issue such local media, arguing that such noticen It suggests that,in this unlikely case, the an immediately effective amendment would annecessarily elevate the Commission might issue an immediately only if the amendment involves no importance of amendment requests.
effrctiva order under to CFR 2.204.
significant hazards considerations. If the Another commenter recommends that Re#panse--Since there is a possibility amendment does involve a signincant if MtC believes that it must issue a for confusion over the meaning of hazards consideration. the Commission press release,it should consult with the
" emergency" $ 50.91(a)(4) has been is required by law to provide 30 days heensee on a proposed release before it i
L
i Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 44 / Thursday March 6,1ses / Rules and Regdetiosio 7757 acts. It also requests that NRC inform circumstances could arise during the procechares are the appropriate sehstion 1
the hcensee of the States's and the normal comment pe..ied. lf this were to when notice and hessing ase statutorily pubhc's comments and that it promptly occur, as noted in the notices it now requimd but time is of the essena.
forward to the licensee copies of an issues, it will expedite the processing of Two ocumenters are eleo concerned correspondence.
the amendment request to the exteet it about the potential floe deley in the new Tw o commenters also oppose the toll-can,if the request und the exigency or notice pad s one requesting that free " hot.line" in exigent circumstances, emergency are connected. As explained the role indicate the normet time NRC q
arguing that the concept implies above, of course the Comrnission may needs to process sootme and amergency 3
immir.ent danger or xvere safety also issue an appropriate order under.10 applications.
concerns which normally will not be CFR part 2 If thern is an imminent Response-%e interim final rules q
present. One of these commenters danger to the poblic health or safety.
preserve the option to publish individual 7"
requests,instead, the use of mailgrams or overnight express. It also H. Retroactivity or periodic Federal Register notices, or a j
combination of both. The Commission S
recommends,if a hotline systemis Comments-One commenter requests stated in the interim final rules that the implemented, that the system should be (and another agrees) that NRC should periodic notices would be published at conf:ned to extraordinary amendments clarify i 2.105(a)(4)(i)--which explains least every 30 days, leaving the option of ins ch ing unique circumstances. To how NRC may raake en amendment mo.e frequent publication if appropriate, ensure accurate transcription of the immediately effective-to state that Dough it agrees that minor routine comments received, it suggests that the NRC will not provide notices of amendments could be published in its comments be recorded and retained.
proposed action on no significant periodic notice and that non. routine d
=
The other commenter requests that hazards consideration amendment amendments could be published in copies of the recorded comments be'sent requests received before May 6,1983 individual notices. it does not want to j
to the licensee.
(the effective date of the interim final establish by rule any particular mode of 2
Another commenter suggests that the rule). It suggests that the Commission publication.
rule specify the geographical area to be should publish instead notices of
%e Commie = Ion does not egree that a cotPied by a notice to the media.
issuance of amendments pursuant to
- 10. day comment period should be the Response-By definition, in s 2.106.
norm. It believes that its system, which emergency situations NRC does not Ano+her cc mmenter suggests normally allows for 30 days public have time to issue a notice,in exigent expedited treatment for amendment comment. is more in keeping with the L
circumstances, the Commission must act requests received before May 6,1983, intent af the legislation, which provided swif:!y but has time to issue some type when these relate to refueling outages for a reasonable opportunity for public of notice; in most instances it will be a scheduled by licensees before that date.
comment, except in emergency Federal Register notice requestmg pubh,c Response-The Commission has situations where there is no time il comment within less than 30 days, but noticed ammdment requests it received provided for public comment and in 9
not less than t.<o weeks.The before May 6.1983, along with its exigent circumstances where them is Commission, of course, needs the proposed c'eterminations.
less than 30 days provided.
i te k and to a q c ly f C
I Notice and Consultation Procedures Section 5031[s)(S) has been clarified j
cannot issue a Federal Register notice 1.1 Comments-One commenter to indicate that the comment period on
=
for at leest two weeks public comment proposes the following changes Q",jg',[,',,"g g,'d
~
I in esigent circumstances, then, with the (endorsed by another commenter) to the al help of the licensee. it willissue some notice procedures to shorten the p rio\\ beg brst I
pe e th'
~-
type of media notice requesting public comment period and to clarify the
}
cc comment within a reasonable time. It method of publication:
noh.ce.
3 will consult with the licensee on s Finally, the Commission does not g
proposed reIease, on the geograpnica1 Routme minor amendments shouki be agree that it abo dd prescribe normal a
area ofits ccverage and, as necessary pubbshe ! in the monthly Federd Register time periods for pacessing routine and I
compilation ocly and a ten-day comment and appropnate may inform it of the penod a:cerded. There should be no emergency mquesto hs sta y gt A
r Sta'e's and the public's comments. If a individual Federal Register notice in routine process aH mquesM e6 quic% as it can.
ay system of mailgrams or overnight cases. An indmdual notice should be The Commisvon hereby dimets the staff express is workable,it will use that as pubhshed in the Federal Register for requests t', handle requests promptly and 7
opposed to a hotline: however,it will that are not routine. such as for instance, efficiently to insure that the staffis not 7
not rule out the use of a hotline. And ifit steam generator modifications or rarachne the cause for a licensee's emergency or
.=
does use a hotline. it may tape the These requests could miso be pubbebed in.he exigency request.
conversations and may trescribe them, "$F d'a aj'the in pered 1.2 Comments-One commenter run a
as necessary and appropriate, and may notice. As in the case for routine argues that the consultation procedures 4
inform the licensee of these.
ameninents, we propose a ten-day comment created by the interim final rules do not 1.3 Comment-One commenter notes perioi in exigent circumetances. which couM meet Congress intent because they that exigent circumstances can arise enco npass either routine or non-routine leave it to a State to decide whether it after the publication of a Commission reqmsts, we propose that notice be pubhshed wants to consult on the licensee's f
notice offering a normal public comment ind;vidually ir. the Federal Register and that amendment request and NRC's ni period on a proposed determination. It a rusonable cormnent period be acemded proposed determination. It seeks s
requests that in these circumstances the taking into accet the facts of the particular " formal, active consultation" (before final rule should make clear that an e*-
NRC makes its proposed determination c
expedited schedule would be
%e commenter argues that expedited and publishes a Federal Register notice) established for receiving public notice procedures would satisfy the through the " scheduling of formal d
comments and issuing the amendment.
statutory requirements, would eliminate discussions between the State and the tiesponse-The Commission agrees a large source of delay, and would be NRC on the proposed determination, that emergency situations and exigent approved by the courts, since expedited with the foregoing of such only upon
=
=
r d,
.m
' =, ' * * ' '
- g9J
+ i'"., -
~.
7758 Federal Regist r / Vol. 51. No. 44 / Thursdry, hfarch B.1986 / Rules and Regulations written waiver of the State."It also hazards consideration. the Commission not be tbe identifiable recipients of seeks incorporation of the State's will publish a notice ofissuance of the benefits resulting from this more comments in the Federal Register notice amendment under i 2.106. The licensee involved process and thus licensees along with an explanation of how NRC or any other person with the requisite should not be assessed fees for resched these. Fmally,it requests that interest may request a hearing pursuant expenses resulting from the public NRC alway 5 telephone State officials to this notice. Thus, implicit in i 2.106 is notice. State consultation. and othes before issuing an amendment, rather the notion that a notice ofissuance related activities. Finally. It argues that than merely " attempting" to telephone provides notice of opportunity for a it is clear from the legislative history them as, the commenter states, the rule hearing. The phrase in 9 2.105 makes this bthind Pub. L 97-415 that licensees a e prosides.
notion exphcit. Finally. contrary to the not the prime beneficiaries of this new Another cemmenter is satisfied with commenter's assertion the Commission license amendment process.
the notice and consultation procedures, does provide prior rather than post Response--It is clear that the issuance stating that "the regulations give the notice in exigent circumstances.
State no more authority in regulating the of a license amendment is a "special operation of the reactor then it had in K. Procedures to Reduce the Number of benefit" for the licensee, and that the the past, but they serve notice on the Amendments Commission is therefore authorized to impose a fee to recover the cost to the reactor operator that the State is an Comment-One commenter suggests agency of conferring that benefit.
interested party in all nuclear operations that many of the routine matters which within the State."
require amendments should not be MississippiPowerFLight Co. v.
i Response-The Sta'e consultation subject to the license amendment Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 601 P
procedures are well within Congress,'
process. !! arFues that greater use F.2d 223,227 (5th Cir.1979).The notice I
intent. These procedures al!cw a Stste should be made of $ 50.59 (involving and consultation process established in to take on as active a tale as it wishes..
changes, tests and experiments without the present rulemaking. together with all consulting with NRC on every prior Commission approval, where these other aspects of the no significant 1
amendment request. ifit wants to do so.
do not mvolve an unreviewed safety hazards consideration determination.
)
On the other hand, ifit wants to question or a technical specification reflects statutory requirements that must i
conserve its resources and consult only incorporated in a license) for changes be met in the issuance of a license on amendment requests it considers mvolving routine matters by not placing amendment. Accordingly, the NRC important. it may do that as well. The such changes mto the technical sesources expended in this part of the system of formal consultation envisaged specifications and thereby avoiding the amendment proceedings are costs by the first commenter is contrary to the need to issue license amendments. Tw necessarily incurred by the agency on mtent of Congess. as d'scussed in commenters also generally endorse the behalf of the licensee.Thus the section IlllB) below.
Commission's proposed rule (published Commissio.n may include these costs in Finally. I 50 91(b)(3) of the interim on March 30.1982 m 47 FR 13369) that or tsumg 6e aMmed final rule clearly states that before NRC would reduce the volume of technical While the Commission believes that issues the amendment. it will telephone specifications now part of an operating the public as well as the hcer.see will the appointed State officialin which the license, thereby reducing the need to benefit from this clarification and licensee's facihty is located for the request license amendments.
improvement in the amendment process.
purpose of consultation. The Response-The Commission is the "special benefit" of receiving a Commission belieses that this last step reconsidering the proposed rule noted particular license amendment pertains is needed to ensure that the State indeed above. It may issue a Policy Statement to the licensee alone, and the is aware of the amendment request and in its stead or another different.
Commission may therefore assess the does not wish to be consulted about it.
simplified proposed rule, or both.
full cost of providing it. Mississippi The rule has been changed in minor Power & Light. supro. at 230, ways to clarify these points _
Ucense Fees
/ Notices in Emergency Situations or Comment--One commenter argues M. Regionalization Exigent Circumstances that licensees should not be assessed Comment-One commenter additional fees to finance activities recommends that before NRC's Comment-One commenter involving no significant hazards headquarters transfers authority to the tecommends that the Ccmmission considerations determinations. It states Regions to process " routine" clarify that it intends to issue a " post that recently NRC proposed to amend amendments, there should be a clear notice" under i 2.106 rather than a the existing regulations governing understanding among the licensee, the
" prior notice" under i 2.105 when it has payment of fees associated with, among Region and NRC's headquarters about determined that there is an emergency other things, the processing of license the ground rules (1) on what would situation or exigent circumstances and amendment requests. (Proposed rule: 47 constitute " routine" versus "comple x" that an amendment involves no FR 52454 (November 22,1982): final rule; amendments and (2) on the ways in significant hazards consideration. The 49 FR 21293 (May 21.1984).) The key which the amendments would be commenter suggests replacement of the element of the proposed changes related processed from the times they are phrase in i 2.105(a)(4)(ii) that "it will to assessment of fees based upon actual requested, through notice and State provide notice of opportunity for a NRC resources expended, rather than consultation, to their grant or denial.
hearing pursuant to i 2.106" with the upon fixed fees for various classes of Response-The Commission agrees.
words "instead of publishing a notice of amendments. The commenter adds that For the time being though, and perhaps proposed action pursuant to this section, if the Part 170 > hanges are issued as in the future. NRC's headquarters will it will publish a notice ofissuance proposed. aftte. Afay 6.1983-the retain authority to process amendment t
pursuant to 12.106".
effective date of the interi.: final rules-requests for no significant hazards Response-The Commission has not NRC resources expended as part of the consideration determinations. See.
cceepted the latter part of the notice and State consultation process generally. NRC Authorization Act for commenter's request. In an emergency would be financed by the requesting Fiscal Years 1984 and 1985 (Pub. I. 98-situation involving no significant licensee. It asserts that licensees would 553. October 1984).
t t.
c,
..m e
Federal Register / Vol. 51 No. 44 / 'Ihursday, March 6,1986 / Rules and Regulations 7759 N E2en ption Requests presently issued biweekly-now provide ~ application has been returned for such Comment-One commenter is an opponunny to mquat a hearing nasoma,h bmee oN ehra concerned that NRC might automatically within thiny days. The Commission also negligence, the oppheant camd use the d
I retained the option ofissuig indivxlual exigency or emergency proviatona of the a e dments I e es t exe ption notices, as it sees fit. in the final rule, rule for any subsequent appbcalism for requests need not automatically be the Commission's procedures peovide the sanne amendment.
considered license amendments, even that a person whose interest may be When the staff recei res the though NRC has occasionally elected to affected by the proceeding may file a amendment request, ati described below.
notice such requests in the Federal petition for leave to intervene and it decides whether there is an Register or has assigned license request a hearing. See ( 2.105(d)(2). If emergency situation or exigent,
amendment numbers to the issuing h sta%u et nche any nquuJ circumstanenMen is a emeyncy, documents f r a hearing on an amendment withm it makes a preliminary decision-called Response-The Commission does not the notice period, it takes the proposed e " proposed determination"-about automatically consider exemption action when it has completed its review whether the amendment involves no requests as license amendments. Most and made the necessary findings. lf significant hazards considerations.
are not amendments. If an exemption to instead it receives a request for a Normally, this is done before completion the regulations for a particular facility hearing. it acts under new $ 50.91, which of the safety analysis or evaluation. In also entails or requires an amendment describes the procedures and critena the proposed determination, it might to the facility license the amendment the Commission uses to act on accept the applicant's appraisalin would be processed as a license applications for amendments to whole or in part or it might reject the amendment under the "Sholly*-
operating liceases.
applicant's appraisal but, nonetheless, To implemmt me main theme of the reach the same conclusion. With respect regulations and the requir'ements of the rega!ations could not be avoided simply legislation, the Comm,ssion combmed a to the proposed determination, the staff i
because an exemption is also involved.
notice of opportunity for a hearing with views the term " considerations"in the a notice for pubhc comment on any dictionary sense, that is, as a sorting of 111. Present Practice, and Modifications proposed determinstion on no factors as to which it has to make that l'nder the Final Rule significant hazerds consideration. See determination. In this sorting, the three i 5031 New i 50.91 also permits the A. Nece forPuNic Comment andfor Comm;ssion to make an amendment standards are used as benchmarks and.
Opportunityfor a Hearing if applicable, the examples may be used i
immediately effective in advance of the as guidelines.
In the two intenm final rules, the conduct and completion of any required Amendment requests received before Commission adopted the notice hearing where there has been a no May 6.1983 (the effective date of the procedures and criteria contemplatec. by significant hazards consideration the legis:ation for no significant hazards determination. To buttress this point, the interim final rules) have been processed in the same way, except that licensees considergtion determinations. In Commission has modified 5 50.58(b)(6) have not been required to provide their addition it decided to combine the to state that only it on its own initiative notices for public comment on no may review the staffe final no ap i
significant hazards considerations with significant hazards consideration t s sta8e* if the staff decides that the notices for opportunity for a hearing. determination. Thus, 6 50.91 builds upon n gn Ican aza conderaHon is Thus. ncrmally, for operating license amended i 2.105, providing details for.
ed. H can ing an inMuel amendn ents for facilities described in the system of Federal Register notices.
Federal Nster notice dst,tb i 50.21(b) or i 50.22 or for testing For instance, exceptions are made for an'endment in its penodic-biweekly---
facihties, the Commission provided both emerge y situations, with no prior Publication in the Federal Register. This pnor notice of opportunity for hearing notice of opportunity for a hearing and periodic publication lists not only and prict notice of public comment.The for public comment, assuming no amendment reqmts for wMch the Commission also explained in the significant hazards considerations. In Commission is publishing a notice under interim final rules that while the sum. this system added a " notice for i 2.105, H also provides a reasonable substan:e of the public comments on the public comment" under $ 50.91 to the opportunity for pubhc comment by no significant consideration findin8 former system of " notice of proposed listing this and all amendment requests could be litigated in a hearing, when one action" under i 2.105 and " notice of received since the last such periodic is held, neither the Commission nor its issuance" i 2.106.
n tice, and, like an individual notice. (a)
Licensing Boards or Presiding Officers Under this new system, the providing a description of the would entertain hearing requests on the Commission requires an applicant amendment and of the facility invol ed.
NRC staffs substar tive findings with requesting an amendment to its (L.) noting the proposed no significant respect to these comments. It noted that operating license (1) to provide its hazards consideration deterr-ination. (c) this is in keeping with the legislation careful appraisal on the significant soliciting pubhc comment on the which states that public comment hazards issue, using the standards in determinations which have not been cannot delay the effective date of an i 50.92 (and whatever examples are previously noticed, and (d) providing for amendment. The Commission intends to applicable), and (2)ifit involves the a 30-day comment period.
continue thie practice, as fully described emergency or exigency provisions, to
, Out of a total of 2404 notices of no below.
address the features on which the significant hazards considerations the With respect to opportunity for Commission must make its findings.
Commission received requests for hearing, the Commission amended (Both points are discussed below.) The hearings on 13 notices and comments on i 2.105 to specify that normally it could staff has frequently stated to applicants 15 notices. Out of a total of 38 notices of issue in the Federal Register at least that the Commission wants a " reasoned significant hazards considerations, the every 30 days, and perhaps more analysis" from an applicant. An Commission received requests for frequently, a list of " notices of pmposed insufficie"t or sloppy apptcisal will be hearings on 3 notices and no comments.
actions" or requests to amend operating returnec; io the applicant with a request between May 6,1983 and September licenses. These periodic notices-to do a more careful analysis. Where an 30,1985, the Commission published
l W 7760 Feder:1 Register / Vol. 51. Ns. 44 / Thursd:y. Mm:h 8.1986 / Rul:s and Regulations "vtrious types of notices in addition to or For the purpose ofillustration, the been published the periodic publication to the exclusion of Federal Register following table lists the Commission's does not extend the deadline date for notices (FRNs).Three were press monthly FRNs between May 6.1983, and filing comments or providing an relzises only; four were press releases September 30.1985, on determinations opportunity for a hearing.See and paid announcements; one was a about no significant hazards 150.91(a)(2).
press release and an FRN; and one was considerations (NSHC). The final rule aumes caos -
a paid announcement only.
clarifies that if an individual notice has s
L
(
1 1
e e
f e
t i
m
m..
I 1
"9EM.1,Y" bTAT15 tim h y 6, 1983 through Iliweekly HtN Individual DN Individual H N Septanber 30, 1985 Proposed NSIC Proposed NSC SIC Totals 4th FY 85 Total 4th FY 85 Total 4th FY 85 Total 4th FY 85 Total
?
PHtI(D CDVDtID Sept. 4tK to to Sept. 4tK to to
%pt. Qtr. to to Sept. QtE to to 2-1985 IT 85 da te date 1985 FY 85 date date 1985 FY 85 date date 1985 FY 85 date date E
u.
M Omment period:
E.
?.
30 days 87 282 934 2155 2
5 47 249 0
6
'10 36 89 293 1041 2440 Imse than 30 days o
e.o.
Short HN 0
0 9
22 0
0 9
22 O
Press Pelease 0
1 5
9 i
Public cements (12 HN received 0
0 0
1 0
0 3
11 0
0 0
0 0l 0
3 2 Pit )
Ei 14 E-(15 F1H E
Requests for 1 pet)
R hearing 0
1 1
4 0
0 0
9 0
0
'2 3
0 1
3 16
[
=8 Anenttnents issued - Total 82 228 874 1647 s
(I) Wi t h 3 0 da ys no t i ce...................................................................
76 213 830 1555 F
(2) less than 30 days or 10 FUTIC1'.........
6 15 43 82 7
(3) llea ring reques t ed but f i na l NS C de t e:W na t ion rnnde ( 50. 91(a )( 4 )).....................
0 0
0 10 m
(4) Proposed NSC: hearing requested; hearing completed and amendnent issued.
R.
No final NSC determination wus ende because hearing was canpleted before x
amendnen t wa s n eeded.................................................................... 0 0
1
~1-
{%
5' theklog: (Applications received which were not isoticed. either in biweekly Md or individuntly through g
R ptanber 30.,1985): NthEDt: ~
- (!:.cludes itens Alch were prepared and approved for publication in 227 the next biweekly. ilmts which are 'ii. concurrence, anx! itens for dich addittormt infotination was needed frun 1icensee.)
i
.u= coo. nm,_c s
g De
4 W 7762 Federd Regist r / Vol. 51. No. 44 / nursday. March a. 2906 / Cules and Regulations While it is awaiting pubbe comment, disposition of the amendment by noting sense-see section 11(F)(1.1) above), the the staff proceeds with the safety its issuance or denial in an individaal Commission would act under the system ar.al> sis. After the pubhc comment Federal Register notice. As explained described above.
per od. the Commission reviews the abow, even 11 the amendment request Another unusat case might occur comments. if an3. considers the safety were to involve an emergency situation where the Coramission receives an anal sis. and makes its decision on the and if it were determined that a amendment request and finds an exigent 3
amendme-e request. If it decides that no significant hazards consideration were circumstance, that rs. a situation other sigmficant hazards consideration is invok ed. the Commission would be than an emergency where swift action is msohed it etthe r may pubbsh an required to issue a notice providing an ne,mssary. Th: legislation, quoted mdaidual " notice of issuance" under opportunity for a prior hearing. If the above, states that the Comrnission i 2106 or. normal'3. a notice of issaance Comn11ssion were to determine, should estabhsh criterra which "take in its system of petiod:t Federal Register however, that there was an iraminent into account the exigency of the need for t
nota es. thus closmg the pubhc record.
threat to public health or safety. it could the amendment." The Conference r
As the Commission esplained in the issue an appropriate order under10 CFR Report, quoted abow, points out that.
i preamble to the intenrn final rules. it Part 2. as ha.s been enth abose, and "the contevence agreement peeeerves for does not norm ll make and pubbsh a as is also discused below.
the Commissicsi substamtial flexibility to 3
%1 dete rmmanon" en na sigmficant Another unusual case might arise: The tailor the notia and comment ha72 ds cons.d4 r. tion. unless there is a staff may recehe an amendment request procedures to the exigeccy of the need rews st for a haanng as well as an NRC and find an emagency situation, where for the license amendment" and that dnsvn to mckr the amendment failure to act in a timely way would "the conferees expect the mntest, in me Lte!) effectise before the
. result'in derating or shutdown of a placement, and timing of the notree to be hurm In 6.s reurd the staff nee 3not nuclear power plant. In this case, also reasonably calculated to allow residents j
repond to cen.nsents if a hearing has discussed below in connection with of the area surrounding the fad!ity an r:o' bc cn rt gi.ested State consultation. it may proceed to adequate oppwtuaity to formulate and if n rcrems a heanne request dunng issue the license amendment,ifit submit reasoned amments?
tFe r omrm.t pad and de staff has determmes, arnong other things, that no in the interim fmal rules, the e
denJed tha' nu sigmficant hazards sigruncant hazards consideration is Cornmission stated that extraordmary L
conud+ rawn > in ch ed e prepares a invoked. In this circumstance the staff cases may arise, abort of an emergency.
" final determ..otwn" on that issue might not necessarily be able to provide where a heensee and the Commission whu h t ons.drr3 6e request and the prior notice of opportunity for a hearing must act quickly and where time does pubb ccmm nts. makes the necessary or prior notice for public comment; not permit the Commission to publish a safi$ and pahin heal'h f'ndegs. and though it has not done this to date. it Fecieral Register notice soliciting public proa eds to issae the amendment.The could issue an individual notice with an commen' or to provide the 30 days
(
heannc regs u is treated the same way opportunity for a hearing 1ifter the ordinarily allowed for public comment.
L as m preunus Commission practice. that amendment is issued (see i 2.106) or, as As noted in the response to pubhc is. by pn.uir.g on) regmsde hearing has been the case thus far,it could comments on the two interirn final rules, i
aft < r the amendment has been issued provide periodac notice (the the Commission gave as examples two As explamed abne. where the Commission's periodic Federal Register circumstances where expedited action CummtWen has de termmed that no notice system notes NRC's action cm the by the Commission would result in a net samifont hazch corn.deration is amendment request and provides an benefit to safety. (See additional inschi i the 17suon permes the opportunity for a hearing after issuance). examples at !!(G)(1.1).) For example. a Cornmiss:on ta make an amendment In the preamble to the interirm final licensee with a reactor shutdown for a immciate!) effectue in adsance of the rules. in connection with emerEency short time might wish to add some holing and comp!rnon of any reqaired
' requests. the Cosimission stated that it component clear!v more reliable than heant.g notw chstandmg the pendem y expects its licensees to apply for license run 7resently installed or the licensee before it of a request for a beanng.
cmendments in a timely fashion, might wish to use a d.fferent method of The pracedures just des ribed have explaining that it will decline to testmg some system and that method been the usua! w ay of handhng bcense dispense with notice and comstent on would be better than one provided for in amendments under the intenm final the no segnificant hazards consideration Ps technical specifications. In either l
rules because most of these determination if it determines that the case, the licensee may have to request F
t amendments da not intoh e (1) apphcant has failed to make a timely an amendment, and if the staff emergency situations. (:'l exigent application for the amendment because determines. among other things, that no t
circumstances. or (3) entad a of negligence os in order to create the significant hazards consideration is determination that a significant hazards emergency so as to take advantage of involved,it may wish 'o grant the i
j consideration is insolved. As discussed the emergency provision. Whenever an request before the licensee resames below. howner, these three cases and emergency situation is involved. the plant operation and loses the other anomabn could anse.
Commission expects the apphcaat to opportunity to improve the plant.
For exampic. retammg to the initial explain to it why the emergency has ne Commission noted in the interim I
receipt of an application. if the staff occurred and why the applicant could final rules that in circumstances such as were to recene an amendment request not avoid it; the Commission will asseas the two just described. It may use media and then determine that a sigaificant the applicant's reasons for failure to file other than the [ederal Registar to inform hazards consideration is invohed. it an application sufficiently in advance of the public of the licmsee's amendment would handle this amendraent request that event.
request. For example. it may use a local by first issuing an indrvidual notice of An emergency situation might also newspaper published near the liansee's
{
proposed action providmg an occur dttrin2 the normal 30-day facility which is widely read by the 7
opportunity for a prior heanng under comment period. Depending upon the residents in the area surroundmg the i 2105. and. afterwards. as app opnate, type of ernergency (safety-eelated versus facility.ne Commission stated that in notifying the public of the fmal emergency situation in the "Sholly" these instances it will provide the public
Federal Regi:ler / Vol. 51, Nm 44 / Thursd:y, Mach 8. 986 / Rules and Regulations 7783 a reasonable opportunity to comment on negligence or in order to create the cited earlier, stated that the conferees the propowd no significant hazards exigent circumstances so as to take expect that the procedures for State determination. It also stated that to advantage of the exigency provision.
consultation would include the follo' wing (nsure timely r=ceipt of the comments,it Whenever a licensee wants to use this elements:
may also establish a toll. free hotline, provision,it must explain to the staff the (1) ne State would be notified of a allowing the public to telephone their reason for the exigency and why the
- licensee's request for an amendment:
comments to NRC on the amendment licensee cannot avoid it; the staff will (2)The State would be advised of the request.
assess the licensee's reasons for failure NRC*a evaluation of the amendment request:
This method of prior notice for public to file an application sufficiently in (3) ne NRC's proposed determination on comment is in addition to any possible advance of its proposed action or for its whether the license amendment involves no in.dividual notice of hearin8. It does not inability to take the action at some later significant hazards ennsideration would be discussed with the State and the NRC's g
aifect the time available to exercise the time'e staff could also receive anreasons for making that determination would Th opportunity to request a hearing, though the Commission may provide that amendment request with respect to be explained to the State:
(4) ne NRC would listen to and consider opportunity only after the amendment which it finds that it is in the pubhc any comments provided by the State official has been issued, when the Comn:ission interest to offer an opportunity for a designated to consult with the NRC: and has determined that no significant prior hearing. In this case,it would use (5) The NRC would ciake a good faith hazards consideration is involved.
its present individual notice procedure attempt to consult with the State prior to The Commission has modified slightly to allow for hearing requests. Whether issuing the license amendment.
the procedure discussed above. In r n t a neanng is held,it would notify At tue same time, however, the emergency situations the staff does not the public about the final disposition of h n e time to issue a notice'.'In the amendment in an individual Federal procedures for State consultaticn would nicumstances, the staff has to. exigent Register notice of issuance or denial.
not:
ict swatly but has some time to issue a It should also be re-emphasized that (1) Give the State a right to veto the notice. usualh a Federal Register notice thest procedures normally only apply to proposed NRC determination:
rc westing public comment within 30 license amendments.The staff may, 121 Cive the State a right to a hearing on the NRC determination before the amendment days but r.ot less than two weeks. The under existing ii 2.202(f) and 2.204, becomu eWetwe:
Commission, of course, needs the make a determination that the pubhc (3) Give the State the n,ght to inslat upon a woperation of a licensee to make the health, safety, or interest requires it to.
postponement of the NRC determination or n stem work and to act quickly. If NRC rder the licensee to act without pnor luuance of the amendment: or is put in a situation where it cannot n tice for pubhc comment or (4) Alter preser.t provisions oflaw that iscue a Federal Reg ter notice for at opportunity for a hearing, in this case, reserve to the NRC exclusive responsibility is least two weeks pubhc comment,it will the staff wou!d follow its present for setting and enforcing radiological health ime a media notice. it may consult with procedure and publish an individual and safety requirements for nuclear power l
notice ofissuance in the Federal plants.
I tFc hcensee on a proposed release and Register and rovide an opportunity for in requiring the NRC to exercise good faith cn the gaographical area of its coverage a hearing on t e order.
In consulting with a State in determining a-d. as necessary and appropriate, may The new system has changed only the
)
whether a license amend nent involves no inform it of the State's and the public's Commission's noticing practices, not its sign cent hazards consWram 6e comments. If a system of mailgrams or
- "*"""'8"'**
- "Y""
hea@ lamed in the two interim final rules g Fadcet The Commiss!on number of truly exceptional cases may arise m ernight express is workable, the exp when the NRC, despite its good faith efforts.
Ci.rnmission may use that as opposed to that it haa stempted to provide noticing cannot contact a responsible State official for a hot!!nt: hewever,it has not ruled out procedures that tre administratively purposes of prior consultation. Inability to the use of a hotline. Ifit does use a simple, involve the least cost, do not consult with a responsible State official hothne, it may tape the conversations entail undue delay, and allow ::
following sc,od faith attempts should not and may transcribe them, as necessary reasonable opportunity for public prevent the NRC from making effective a and appropriate, and may inform the
- omment; nevertheless, it is clear that license amendment involving no significant licensee of these.
they are burdensome and involve hazards consideration,if the NRC deems q As with its provisions on emergency resource impacts and timing delays for
- },** [t. nh.'Re pl o 97 h
situations. the Commission explamed in the Corr. mission and for licensees Cong.,2d Sess at 39 (1982).
the interim final rules 1st it would use request.ng amendments. Licensees can these procedures spanngly and that it reduce these delays under the
'Ilie law and its legislative history waMs to make sure that its licensees procedures by providing to the were quite specific. Accordingly, the will not abuse these procedures. It Commission their timely and carefully Commission adopted the elements stated that it will use criteria similar to prepared appraisals on the issue of described in the Conference Report the ones it uses with respect to significant hazards, and the staff can quoted above in those cases where it emergency situations to decide whether further reduce delay by proccasing makes a proposed determination on no it soitt shorten the comment period and requests expeditiously.
significant hazards consideration.The change the type of notice normally Commission has decided to retain this provided. It also stated in connection ate Consuhation procedure. Normally, the State with requests indicating exigent As noted above Pub. L 97-415 consultation procedures works as circum >iances that it expects its requires the Commission to consult with follows. To make the State consultation licensees to apply forlicense the State in which the facility involved process simpler and speedier, under the amendments in a timely fashion. It will is located and to promulgate reguhtions interim fir,al rules the Commission has not change its normal notice and public which prescribed procedares for such required an app!! cant requesting an comment practices where it determines consultation on a determination that an amendment to send a copy ofits that the licensee has failed to use its amendment to an operating license appraisal on the question of no best effort. to make a timely application insolves no significant hazards significant hazards to the State in which for the amendment because of consideration. The Conference Report, the facility involved is located. (The v
l W 7764 Fedext Registir / Vol. 51. No. 44 / Thursday. March 8.1986 / Rules and Regulations NRC compiled a hst of State officials hearing. I set out my reascns for this by the Small Basiness Administration at who were designated to consult with it belief in my separate views en the 13 CFR Part 121. Consequently, this rule on emendment requests involving no interim final rule so I will not repeat does not fall within the purview of the significant hazards considerations:it them here. Sea, 48 FR 14864.
Act.
made this list available to allit -
Second, the statement of licensees with facihties covered ' y considercisons does not clearit describe List of Subjects L
& 50.21(b) or i 50.22 or mith testing the nature of the staff's deterrtination of 10 CM Pbrf 2 facilities.)
wisether there are "significant lazards The staff sends its Federal Register considerations." Failure to clarify this Admu., trativepractice and us notice, or some other notice in the case issue in time intenm final rule le d to procedure. Antitrust. Byproduct of exigent circumstances. containing its much constemation when the matenal. Classified information..
t proposed determination to the State Commission considered the repair of the Environmental protection. Nuclear official designated to consult with it TMI-1 stearn generators. The matenals. Nuclear power plants and together with a request to that person to Commission should clearly st ate that the reactors. Penalty. Sex discrimination, i
contact the Commission if there is any determination should be whether the Source matenal. Special nuclear i
disagreement or concern about its proposed amendment preser.ts any new matenal. Waste treatment and disposal.
I proposed determination. If it does not or tmreviewed safety issues for 10 CFR Port 50 hear fiom the State in a timely manner, consideration: the issue is r.ot whether i
it concludes that the State has no the staff thinks that ultimately it will be Antitrust. Classified informa tion. Fire interest ir. its determination. In this able to conclude that the amendment prevention. Incorporation by reference, regard. the staff made available to the will present no additional nok to the Intergovernmental rela tions. Nuclear l
designated State officials a hst ofitsw pubic.
power plants and reactors. Penalty.
l Project Managers and other personnel
)
whom it has designa'ed to consult with Regulatory Anal sts Radiation protection. Reactor siting 3
criteria. Reporting and recordkeeping these officials. Nevertheless. to insure The Commission prepared a requirements.
i I
that the State is aware of the Regulatory Analysis m these Pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of amendment request and that it is really amendments, when it issued the two 1954,as amended the Energy not interested the fmal rule has been interim final rules. It is cxmtained in Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended, clarified to point out that the SECY-43-16B ano it may be examined and sections 552 and 553 of Title 5 of the Commission will enake a reasonable at the address indicated in United States Code, notace is hereby I
effort ta telephcne the appropriate State
" ADDRESSES" above. Experience to given that the following amendments to official before it issues the amendment.
date indicates that the staff resource 10 CFR Parts 2 and 50 are published as a in an emergency situation. the staff impacts predicted in the Analysis are document subject to codification.
does its best to consult with the State low by about a factor of three. nis is before it makes a fmal determination about no significant hazards expected to change as experience is PART 2-RUI.ES OF PRACTICE FOR gaintd in ir? ementmg the final rule.
DOMESTIC UCENSING PROCEEDINGS consideration before it issues an emendment.
Backfit Statement 1.%e authority citation for Part 2 is Finally. in bght of the legislative Under 10 CFR 50.109. the final rule is revised to read as foUows:
history. though the staff gives careful not a backfit and preparation of a
^'thority: Secs.1st 1:1. sa Stat. in48. 953.
consideration to the comments provided baddit analysis is not necessary
",*mj k42U C 2301 to it by the affected State on the because the final rule imposes no L
t question of no significant hazards consideration. the State comments are requirements on licensees beyond those U Sc 2241). sec. 20L as Stat.1242. a s already imposed by the interim Imal amended (42 USC 5441); 5 U.S.C. 552.
edvisor3 to the Commission; the rules.
See 01 aW iwd under m 53. at Commission remams responsible for e3. sL 103.104.105. sa ssat. 930. 932 a33. 935.
making the final administrative decision Paperwork Reduction Act Statement 936.937.93& as amended (42 USC 20 3.
on the amendment request; a State This final rule amends information 2092. 2093. 2111. 2n3. 2134. 21351. sec.102, Pub. L 91-190. 83 Stat. 853. as amended (42 cannot veto the Commission's proposed collection raluirements subject to the U.S.C 4332); sec. 301, en Stat. 1248 (42 U.S C or final determination. State P perwork Reduction Act of1980(44 Sart). Sectwas2.102. 2.103.2 104. 2 105. 2.721 consultation does not alter present U.S.C. 3501 et sey.J. These requirements also inaued under secs 102.103.104.105.183.
provisions of law that reserve to the were approwd by the Office of 189. es Stat saa, e37. s38. 954. 955 as Commission exclusive responsibility for Management and Budget under approval amen 2
4 setting and enforcmg radiological health number 3150-0011.
2 s
u d' ndh and safety requirements for nuclear Pub. L 97-415. se Stat. 2073 (42 tLS C r391 power plants.
Regulatory Ylexibility CerGfication Sections 2.20&2.20s aho issued under secs.
g arr ews ommissioner In accordance with the Regulatory 186. 234. 68 Stat. 955. e3 Stat. 444 as amended p
Ane stine Flexibility Act of1980 (Act). 5 U.S.C.
(42 U.S C 2236,22821. sec. 20A es Stat.1248 605(b). the Commission certifiea that this (42 U S C 5646). Sections 2.80%2.808 also issued under occ.102. Pub. L 91-190. 83 Stat.
i I do not approve the temmission's rule does not have a significant 853, sa amended (42 U.S.C. 43321. Sections final reguletions implementing the economic impact on a substantia]
2.700s,2.71e also issued under 5 U.S.C 554.
"Sholly Amendstent."I have twe rnajor number of small entities. This nde Sections 2.7s4. 2.760. 2.7r0 sho inued under 5 o
concerns about the rule.
affects only the licensing and operation U.S C 557. Section 2.790 also inued under l
First. I believe that Congress did not of nuclear power plaats and testing uc. 303. as Stat 936. u amended (42 U.S.C intend that the Sholly provision be used facilities. The companies that own these 2k o to approve license araendments to allow plants do not fall within the scope of:he d dE SC 5 See ion the expansion of spent fuel etorage, definition of "small entities" set forth in 2.e09 atso issued under 5 iiS.C 553 and sec.
l whether by rerackmg or by other means, the Act or in the Small Business Size 2'J. Pub. L es-2Ss. 'rt Stas 579. as amended (42 U.S C assel. Subpati K also lessed under prior to the completion of any requested Standards set out in rtypalations issued sec.189, es Sta ses (42 cs C 223er. ecc.134.
6
Federal Register / Vol. St. No. 44 / Thursday, March 6,1986 / Ruhs cnd Reguttions 7785 Pub. L 97-425. 96 Stat. 2230 (42 U.S C 10154).
Sections 50.58,50.91 and sas2 ateo issued as idescrfbed in i 50.91, it may teduce A;Tendn A also issued under sec.6. Pub.L ander Pub. L 97-4t5,96 Stat.2073142 U.SC ghe pened provided for public notice 91-%0. 84 Stat.1473 (42 U.SE 2135).
2239). Section 5018 also issued under sec.
end comment.
- 2. In i 2.105. paragraphs (a)(4). (a)(6),
kaas t (4) Both in an emergency situation and S 21 50 y,
and (dJt2) are revised to read as follows:
954. as amended (42 U.S C. 2234). Sectior.s in the case of engent circumstances, the 50100-50.102 also issued under sec. Iss, es Commission will provide 80 days notice i2.105 Notice of proposed action.
Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2238).
of opportunity for a hearing. though this (d) * *
- For the purposes of sec. 223, se Stat. 958, as notice may be published afterissaance (4) An amendment to an operating amended (42 U.S.C. 2273), il 50.10 (a). (b).
of the amendment if the Commission license for a facility licensed under and (c). 50.44. Se 48, Sa48,50.54. and 30JB0(a) determines that no significant hasards 150 21(b) or i 50.22 of this chapter or for are issued under sec.161b. Se Stat. 9s8. as consideration is involved.
a testing facihty, as follows:
amended (42 U.S C. 2201(b)b 15 50.10 (b) and
{5) The Commission will use the O)If the Commission determines
[CI'"d 50 e issue un sec.
68 g
g and standards is t 50.92 to determine under i 50.58 of this chapter that the i150.55{e). 50.59(bk 5010,50J1,50J2.5073 whether a significant hazards amendment mvolves no sigruficant and 5018 are issued under sec. teto, se Stat.
consideration is presented by an hazards consideration, though it will 950. as amended (42 U.S C. 2201[oll.
amendment to as operating license for a provide notice of opportunity for a For the purposes of sec. 223. es Stat. 958, as facility of the type described in heaCry pursuant to this section,it may amended (42 U SE 2273). Il 5010 (a). (b).
I 50.21(b) or i 50.22, or which is a make the amendment immediately and (c). 50.44. 50.46, 50.4a. 50.54. and Sa.30(a) testing facility, and may make the Effective and grant a hearing thereafter; are issued under sec.1 stb. as Stat. e4a. a.
amendment immediately effective.
amended (42 ttS C. 2201(b)); ii 50L10 fb) and (ii)If the Commission de%rmines' (c) and 50.54 are issued under sec.161i. 68 notwithstanding the pendency before it Stal 949. as a:nended (42 U.SC. 2201(i)); and of a request for a heating from any under i 50.58 and i 50.9t of this chapter i! 50 55(e). 50.59(b),50L70,5031,50.72, and person,in advance of the holding and that an emergency situation exists or 503s are issued under sec. teto, se Stat. 950, completion of any required heanng, that esigent circumstances exist and as amended (42 U.S C. 2201(o)).
where it has determined that no that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration la sigmficant hazards consideration. it will lSU7 (Amended]
involved.
proside notice of opportunity for a
- 5. In i 50.57, paragraph (d) is removed.
(6) No petition or other request for hearing pursuant to i 2.106 (if a hearing
- 6. In 150.58, paragraph (b) is revised review of or hearing on the staffs is requested. it will be held after to read as follows:
significant hazards consideration issuance of the amendment):
$ 50.58 Hearings and report of the determination will be entertained by the Adv5ory Committee on Reactor Commission. The staffs determination (6) An amendment to a license Safeguares.
is final, subject only to the srcified in paragraph (a)(5) of 'his Commission's discretion, on ttr own wction.or an amendment to a (b)(1) The Commission will hold a initiative, to review the determination.
construction authorization granted in hearing after at least 30-days' notice and
- 7. Section 50.91 is revised to read as prxeedmgs on an application for such a publication once in the Federal Register follows:
1 cense. when such an amendment on each application for a construction w ould authorize actions which may permit for a productior or utilization j $0.91 Notice for put lic comrnent; State sm"ificantly affect the health and safety facility which is of a type desenbed in of 'he pubhe: or i 50.21(b) or i 50.22, or for a testing The Commission will use the facihty.
following procedures on an application Idl * * *
(2) When a construction permit has requesting an amendment to an (2) Any person whose interest may be been issued for such a facility following operating license for a facility licensed affected by the proceedmg may file a the holding of a public hearing. and an under i 50.21(b) or i 50,22 or for a i
rquest for a hearing or a petition for application is made for an operating testing facility:
lene to intervene if a hearing has hcense or for an amendment to a (a) Notice forpublic comment.
already been requested.
construction permit or operating license, (1) At the time a licensee requests an the Commission may hold a hearing amendment,it raust provide to the after at least 30-days' notice and Commission its reasoned analysis, using It 2.300-2.309 (Removed]
pubhcation once in the Federal Regieter, the standards in i 50.92, about the issue
- 3. Subpart C (il 2.300-2.309) is or,in the absence of a request therefor of no significant hazards consideration.
)
remos ed.
by any person whose interest may be (2)(!) The Commission may publish in affected may issue an operating license the Federal Register under i 2.105 an PART 50--DOMESTIC t.lCENSING OF or an amendment to a construction individual notice of proposed action for PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION permit or operating license without a en amendment for which it makes a FACILITIES hearing. upon 30-days' notice and proposed determination that no
- 4. The authority citation for part 50 is publication once in the Federal Register significant hazards consideration is resised to read as follows:
ofits intent to do so.
involved, or, at least once every 30 days, (3)If the Commission finds,in an publish a periodic Federal Register Authority: Secs.131.104.161.182.183.186' emergency stuation, as defined in notice of proposed actions which men ed ec.2'3 8 tat 24 as en i i 50.91, that no significant hazards identifies ead) amendment isr.ied and (42 U S C. 2133. 2134. 2201,2232. 2233. 2236, consideration is presented by an each amendment proposed to be issued 2239. 22820 secs. 201. 202. 206. se Stat.1242.
app!ic. tion for an amendment to en since the last such periodic notice, or it 1244.1246. as amended (42 U.SC 5841. 5842.
operating license, it may dispense with may publish both such nctices.
5846). unless otherwise noted.
public notice and comment and may (ii) For each amendment proposed to Section 501 also issued under Pub. L'es-issue the amendment.If the Commission be issued, the notice will (A) contain the 601. sec.10 92 Stat. 2951 (42 U.SC 5451).
finds that exigent circumstancee exist, staffs proposed determination, under
7766 Feder:~l Registir / Vol. 51, No. 44 / Thursd:y, M;rch 6,1986 / Rul:s stad Regul:tions the standards in i 50.92. (B) provide a provision by failing to make timely situation unless it finds an immment brief description of the amendment and application for the amendment and thus danger to the health or safety of the of the facility involved. (C) solicit public itself creating tha emergency. Whenever public. in which case it willissue an comments on the proposed an emergency situation exists. a licensee appropriate order or rule _nder 10 CFR determination. and (D) provide for a 30-requesting an amendment must explain Part 2.
day comment period.
why this emergency situation occurred (b) State consultation.
(iii) The comment penod will begin on and why it could not avoid this (1) At the time a licensee requests an the day after the date of the publication situation, and the Commission will amendment, it must notify the State in t
of the first notice, and, normally. the assess the licensee's reasons for failing which its facility is located ofits request emendment will not be granted until to file an application sufficiently in by providing that State with a copy of its after this comment period expires.
advance of that event.
application and its reasoned analysis' (3) The Commission may inform the (6) Where the Commission finds that about no significant hazards public about the fmal disposition of an exigent circumstances exist. in that a considerations and indicate on the cmendment request for which it has licensee and the Commission must act made a proposed determination of no quickly and that time does not permit application that it has done so. (The Commission will make available to the sigmficant hazards consideration either the Commission to publish a Federal by issuing an individual notice of Register notice allowing 30 days for licensee the name of the appropriate issuance under i 2.106 of this chapter or pnar public comment, and it als State official designated to receive such by publishing such a notice in its determines that the amendment n..olves amendments.)
r periodic system of Federal Register no significant hazards considerations,it:
(2) The Commission will advise the notices. In either event, it will not make (i)[A) Will either issue a Federal State ofits proposed determination and will not publish a final
- Register notice providing notice of an about no significant hazards determination on no significant hazards opportun'ity for hearing and allowing at consideration normally by sending it a consideration. unless it receives a least two weeks from the date of the copy of the Federal Register notice.
request for a heanng on that amendment notice for prior public comment: or (3) The Commission will make request.
(B) Will use local media to provide available to the State official designated (4) Where the Commission makes a reasonable notice to the public in the to consult with it about its proposed final determination that no significant area surrounding a licensee's facility of determination the names of the Project hazards consideration is involved and the licensee's amendment and of its Manager or other NRC personnelit that the amendment should be issued.
proposed determination as deecribed in designated to consult with the State. The the amendment will be effective upon paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
Commission will consider any issuance. even if adverse pulic consulting with the licensee on the comments of that State official. Ifit does comments have been recen ed and es en proposed media release and on the not hear from the State in a timely if an interested person meeting the geographical area of its coverage; manner, it will consider that the State provisions for intervention called for in (ii) Will provide for a reasonable has no interest m its determination:
12314 of this chapter has filed a request opportunity for the public to comment.
nonetheless, to ensure that the State is for a hearing. The Commission need using its best efforts to make available aware of the application. before it issues hold any required hearmg on!> after it to the public whatever means of the amendment. it will make a good issues an amendment. unless it communication it can for the public to fanh effort to telephone that officialf
~
determines that a significant hazards respond quickly, and. in the case of (inability to consult with a responsible consideration is involved in w hich case telephone comments. have these State offical following good faith the Commission will provide an comments recorded or transcribed, as attempts will not prevent the opportunity for a prior hearing..
necessary and appropriate; Commission from making effective a (5) Where the Commission fmds that (iii) When it has issued a local media license amendment involving no an emergency situation exist; in that release, may inform the license of the significant hazards consideration.)
failure to act in a timely way would public's comments, as necessary and (4) The Commission will make a good result in derating or shutdown of a appropriate; faith attempt to consult with the State nuclear power p'an:, or in prevention of (iv) Will publish a notice of issuance before it issues a hcense amendment either resumption of operation or of under 1,ill provide a hearing after 2.106:
involving no significant hazards increase in power output up to the
, (s)W,
consideration. If, however. it does not issue a license amendment involving no person who satisfies the provisions for have time to use its normal consultation plant's licensed power leval. it may issuance. if one has been requested by a significant hazards consideration mtervention called for m i 2.714 of this procedures because of an emergency without prior notice and opportunity for chapten situation, it will attempt to telephone the a hearing or for public comment. In such (vil %ill require the licensee t appropriate State official. (inability to consult with a responsible State official a situation. the Commission will not explam, the exigency and why the.
following good faith attempts will not publish a notice of proposed licensee cannot avoid it, and use its prevent the Commission from making
-termination on no sigmficant hazards normal public notice and comment.
consideration. but will publish a notice procedures m, paragraph (a)(2) of this effect ve a 1 cense amendment involving of issuance under i 2.106 of this chapter, section if it determines that the licensee no significant hazards consideration. if providing for opportunity for a hearing has failed to use its best efforts to make the Commission deems it necessary in
~
end for public comm nt after issuance.
a timely application for the amendment an emergency situation.)
Tha Commission expects its licensees to in order to create the exigency and to (5) After the Commission issues the apply for license amendments in timely take advantage of this procedures.
requested amendment,it will send a fashion. It will decline to dispense with (7) Where the Commission finds that c py ofits determinaton to the State.
notice and commenit on the significant hazards considerations are (c) Coveats about State consultation.
determination of no significant hazards involved. It will issue a Federal Register (1) The State consultation procedures I
consideration if it cetermines that the notice providing an opportunity for a in paragraph (b) of this section do not licensee has abused the emergency prior hearing even in an emergency give the State a right:
k I
Federal Register / W1. 51 No. 44 / %ursday, Marrdi 6,1988 / Ral:s and Itagulations 1757 2
[i) To veto the Commission's proposed For the Nuclear Regulasory Co--
ameedmont. Due concederatian has been or final determination:
Samuel l. Chilk, given to the comments eessired.
(ii) To a hearing on the determination Secintoryfardera-moion A numberdcoamaseters stated that before the amendment beames (FR Doc. awed Fned 8 4-40c ats5 aus] '
the leakage assoaisted settb levotory effective: or saa.sms noms sues.s as di n systems is she resist annedesteate 4
(iii) To insist upon a postponement of f
or in9 roper snaanee===e* and/or the determination or upon issuance of
(,,,,r omicing. Psoper meistenance weeld the amendment.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION eliminate leaks essaept for those resulting been debris tropped in the s
prese o
ons la that serve to Federal Avtetton Admirdstration flesh wolve, and that type of pseblem should be con $t in podine serveng.
the Commission exclusive responsibility 14 CFR Part 39 The AirTremoport Asseosesion(ATA)of for setting and enforcing radiological America,repmeming opwsore of
)
health and safety requirements for iDocket No. SS-NA4-96-AD Andt.3D4880]
Boeing Model 727 ehryiones, noted that nuclear power plants.
In the preemble to Amendment 36-106 j
- 8. Section 50.92 is revised to read as Airworthiness Directives: Boeine (30 FR asza; bdy14.1965), the FAA 1
follows:
Isodel 727 Series Airpienes stated that it would notissue ads as a
{ 50.92 leevance of amendment.
AGENCT. Federal Aviation substitute for enforcing meintenance Administration (FAA). DCTT.
rules. Mrs statement is preceded in that (a)In determining whether an ACTIOm Final rule.
preamble by the following statements:
amendment to a license or construction
,'.. The wibW'us M &
permit will be issued to tfm applicant.
. sussssARY: Dis amendment adds a new FAA by the Federal Aviation Act justify the Commission will be guided by the airworthiness directive (AD) that broadening the regulation {Part 3el to make considerations which govern the requires periodicinspections of the any unsafe condition. whether resulting from issuance ofinitiallicenses or forward lavatory drain system and maintenance, design defect, or otherwise, the construction permits to the extent corrective action,if necessary, On all proper subject of an AD. At the same time the applicable and appropriate.If the Boeing 727 airplanes.This action is A ency recognizes that use of ads to correct 8
application involves the material necessary because ice formed by improper or inadequate maintenance on the alteration of a licensed facility, a leaking drain systems, when ft releases part of particular persons of organizations construction ermit will be issued from the airplane, can cause damage to would impose en unreasonable burden on the before the issuance of the araendment to orloss of an engine.
vast majortry of persons who comply with the the hcense. If the amendment involves a OATEEffective April 14.1986.
regr'etions and properly maintain their significant hazards consideration, the Aponesses:%e applicable service
'i'Cr*f' ~
Commission will give notice of its information may be obtained from the While it is correct that proper proposed action. (1) pursuant to i 2.105 Boeing Commercial Airplane Company, maintenance will prevent the unsafe j
of this chapter before acting thereon and P.O. Box 3707. Seattle, Washingten condition addressed by this AD from (2) as soon as practicable after the 98124.his information may be occurring,it is clear from the large application has been docketed.
examined at the FAA, Northwest number of incidents involving numerous (b) The Commission will be Mcantain Region.17900 Pacific HighwaF operators that the maintenance particularly sensitive to a license South. Seattle, Washington. or the deficiencies that result in the unsafe amendment request that involves Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, condition are not the sort of isolated irreversible consequences (such as one 9010 East Marginal Way South Seattle.
incidents for which the issuance of an tnat permits a significantincreas in'he Washington.
AD would be inappropnate. Rather, this amount of effluents or radiation emitted Fun FURTHER IMFoResATION C0erTACT:
is precisely the sort of situation which bs a nuclear power plant).
Mr.RobertMcCracken. Aerospace Amendment 3G-108 was intended to
'(c) Th'e Commission may make a final Engineer. Systems and Equipment address by broadening the scrpe of the determination. pursuant to the Branch, ANM-130S, Seattle Aircraft applicability of the AD process:namely, procedures in i 50.91, that a proposed Certification Office; telephone (208) 431-widespread maintenance, deficiencies amendment to an operating license for a 2947. Mailing address: FAA Seattle resulting in unsafe conditions.
Aircraft Certification Office. Northwest The Boeing Company suggested that facihty hcensed under i 50.21(b) or Mountain Region.17900 Pacific Highway this AD should apply only to airplanes i 50'22 or fo testin facilit i '
S uth. C-68966. Seattle, Washington with unraodified Monogram toilet tank no significant hazards considers on ii 98168-operation of the facility in accordance flush valves.The FAA hes determined sureLenstwTany aseronssATson:A that the number of "bine ice" incidents with the proposed amendment would proposal to amend Part 39 of the Faderal (where ipe composed oflavatory waste Aviation Regulations to include an water leaking from the lavatory drain (1) Involve a s.igmficant inc ease in airworthiness directive which requires systems and freenng on the outside of the probability or consequences of an periodic inspections of the forward the airplane, has dislodged and accident previously evaluated; or lavoratory drain system and corrective impacted with the airplane itself or with (2) Create the possibility of a new or action. if necessary, on all Boeing Model buildings on the ground), in addition to different kind of accident from any 727 airplanes was published in the the two incidents of engine less accident previously evaluated; or Federal Registee on October 21.1965 (50 referenced in the Notice, provide (3) Invo!ve a significant reduction in a FR 42562).
sufficient endence of system margin of safety.
The comment period for the NPRM.
malfunctions with modified and which ended December 9,1985, afforded unmodified flush valves to warrant Dated at Washmg'on.DC this 28th day of interested persons an opportunity to complete system leak checks ca 41 February 1966.
participate in the making of this Periodic basis.
1 j.
.. _ _ _ _ _. _ _. _ _ -.. - _ _ _ - _ _. - _...